Sarah Christie Removed From the County Planning Commission
Sarah Christie, one of the greatest environmentalists who was summarily removed from the county Planning Commission last week by Supervisor Jim Patterson, who appointed her, is one of those rare people you might run across in a lifetime. So rare that in the 43 years I spent reporting news and describing events, situations and people for newspapers, I can't remember anyone quite like her. Oh, yes, I did cover Martin Luther King in the 1960s, so that puts her in second place. But whoever might be next in line would be a very distant third.
No, Sarah has never been elected to public office, so she hasn't been in that political spotlight. Therefore, few have had the occasion to see her in action in any and all the ways that an officeholder is exposed to public scrutiny. A planning commission is not exactly a pedestal of prominence.
So, very few know Sarah, which means most can't appreciate what the public has lost. They can read the excellent account of her pending departure by Colin Rigley in the New Times without really understanding what has happened. That is because words can't describe Sarah. I know I couldn't.
The fact is you have to see her in action to appreciate her brilliance. Well, you get a glimpse anyway. What you really have to do is to have known her for several decades, worked alongside her, been taught the art of activism by her and have witnessed her incredible capability and resulting accomplishments on behalf of the environment and the public interest to really comprehend her true nature and value.
There are others who have known Sarah in that vein, as a long-time resident, a key member of the Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club and former analyst for the Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo (ECOSLO). And that, very simply, is why a lot of experienced and extremely active local supporters of the public interest in government view her resignation as a devastating loss. It's like a dream come true that someone of her stature could have a role in government, which exists to protect you and me, and then experience something so damaging to actually see that dream destroyed needlessly by having her forced out against our best interests. That's because she is irreplaceable, not conceivably but in reality here and now.
Choosing among her personal assets is difficult because they are all so comparably potent. But in watching and covering public figures for so long, I would have to say that her greatest quality is she is so strong. It stems from her mental capacity, skills and long experience in and knowledge of public affairs and environmental protection, all of which produce the confidence that she exudes. Not exudes flagrantly--she is always respectful and considerate of others in her presence--but in a matter of fact manner that is rarely if ever abrasive by definition but labeled as such by those who (a) disparage her because she cannot be bridled--these are the special interests who inherently place little or no value on the public interest, and/or (b) revolt at the glimmer of a strong woman. Women have made great strides in gaining a measure of equality over the past century, but this continues to be a male-dominated society, with significant exceptions among some reflective men. But for most others, Sarah has taken it too far in terms of being a strong, confident, up front woman who will not back down no matter what.
In short, she IS annoying to those who want their special-interest power to prevail in government. And they are the very ones who went after her.
They know full well that the Board of Supervisors can and sometimes has overridden Planning Commission recommendations and actions. But they also know that when the Supervisors don't go along with the Commission's findings and conclusions, they frequently are held accountable by the well-informed and active government-watchers in the community, including the New Times alone among the media. And so what the Commission has done, often as the result of Sarah simply sharing her reasoning, background and knowledge of state and local governmental records and history, becomes a force not easily overcome.
As Rigley's article makes clear, based on credible sources, the proposed coverage of parts of the Carrizo Plain natural area with vast solar panels became the lightning rod of ongoing efforts of private interests to have her removed from the Commission, although the truth is it was her cumulative support of the public interest on a range of issues that was at the bottom of it. But the Carrizo Plain issue is a representative one to look at.
Credible and powerful evidence exists that solar panels on the roofs of parking structures and warehouses in the urban areas of San Luis Obispo County are very likely to be feasible alternatives to solar panels in desert areas, which require costly transmission lines and have negative environmental consequences not only for the Plain and its wildlife and their habitat but for a great deal of open space across the state on which towers and lines would have to be erected. The alternative is commonly termed "urban photovoltaic" and was recognized by the California Energy Commission in a landmark ruling last June as a viable alternative to gas-fired power plants, in significant part because of the lower costs and much less environmental impact than solar panels developed in distant places requiring many miles of transmission lines.
The point is that what she and other commissioners were surely guided by in their recent review of the Conservation and Open Space Element of the county's General Plan was not preconceived bias toward the two companies seeking approval to build solar panels on Carrizo but emerging documented evidence of a superior alternative, largely unreported by the media. As the New Times article states, they were updating the "Conservation and Open Space Element of the plan. Some of the policy reforms focus on energy: namely what kind, where should power plants be built, and should there be large power plants or should we instead favor solar panels on rooftops? Should energy companies be required to avoid environmental impacts or merely offset them?" The article did not get into what factual evidence was driving those "reforms," but it is clear that information about feasible, cheaper and less environmentally-damaging alternatives are what will define the renewable energy direction of the future both in California and nationwide--and very possibly in San Luis Obispo County where they can be achievable.
The reality is that even with Sarah gone from the Planning Commission, Supervisors will still be faced with having to consider alternatives to the proposed Carrizo project such as urban photovoltaic because the Sierra Club and other environmentalists are waiting in the wings to pursue that very course by presenting factual information to the Supervisors and their staff.
Perhaps the most ironic and illustrative component of this solar issue before the Commission was a draft she wrote of updated policies on energy for the Conservation and Open Space Element, which drew a great deal of special interest fire. Instead of representing her personal convictions, the draft actually was based on public comments, as Rigley so importantly pointed out. Imagine that--the voice of the public actually being translated into a government document! Unprecedented? Perhaps. Intolerable? Absolutely, if you are a special interest used to having your draft converted into government policy, much like how lobbyists have been known to write federal legislation and policy regulations subsequently adopted as law.
I know I said I couldn't describe Sarah and then contradicted myself by trying to do so. But she has done so much for us, and continues to do so as legislative coordinator for the California Coastal Commission, I had to try to open some eyes. That's what I have been trying to do as reporter and then an activist for so long and couldn't stop now.
Jack McCurdy
|
