" Aaah, NB - the joy of living in the disaster capitalist nirvana.

Local economies so destroyed by Wall Street Weasels that the only job is scraps from foreign corporate tables.

Of course, Republican-enablers reach out to blame 'environmentalists'!

No surprise. The third world banana republics so beloved by disaster capitalists have no environmental standards to get in the way of the race to the bottom.

Which is exactly what the radical Grover Norquist agenda has been about all along.

~Ruff "

" I worked as a firefighter for 8 months in Siskiyou County and was surprised with the kind of people we'd meet when we went on calls. They definetely lived a different lifestyle than people in other p[arts of California. Once I'd pass Lake Shasta and enter Siskiyou County it seemed like a whole different world. I don't think becoming the State of Jefferson would help them though. "

" One of the purposes of the US Constitution was to prevent the states from engaging in 'beggar thy neighbor' policies inside the Union.

The same can be said for the State of California. We need to prevent a 'beggar thy neighboring county' death spiral from getting started.

California will not be getting any help from the professional looter class in their efforts.

~Ruff "

" NB, the ones selling cans and wearing second hand clothing are not the environmental wachos who sue businesses and stop development.

To the Algore true believers, it is a religion and they are the missionaries, tasked with "saving" the masses from the damnation of the evils of technology and first world lifestyle.

We have people with the same mentality here in the bay area, it's just that the economy is stronger so the negative impacts are not as pronounced and visible. We all pay the cost for their fanaticism through higher taxes and a lower standard of living... "

" Kevin, I think you are right. It was an odd juxtaposition. Also, the sentiment from the locals who were protesting the Nestle's plan seemed to be shock that the company was getting reticent. That really seems clueless to me.

Ruff, any job is going to do something to the environment, a water factory in a place of abundant water seems pretty harmless as things go. If they want to spend their money here, why not? "

" NB-

The question as always is whether any business 'deal' is good for ALL concerned. Taking advantage of one economically depressed area is the start of the 'race to the bottom'.

We've discussed before that the way to build, or re-build an economically distressed area is to pay GOOD wages and GOOD benefits, instead of the serf wages paid in other areas of the world.

Wages are the way that purchasing power is put in the hands of consumers without debt which eventually constricts the demand side of the economy. Driving down wages is economic suicide.

Just like a company can not shrink it's way to prosperity, a nation-state can not either.

Companies will pay the least they can get away with... and it is governments job to make sure that the 'least' is a decent living wage.

Toyota recently located a factory in Canada instead of the USA because the southern state had such a poor educational system and Canada had national healthcare.

Canada supports unions and higher wages and Wall-Mart has been largely unsuccessful in their union busting efforts in that country because the government is prepared to let them close down a store if they don't want to honor union contracts. The store goes to another company that will pay decent wages and the 'race to the bottom' averted.

So selling out, or selling off other American's livelihoods to benefit corporatists who will make a profit anyway shows two things:

1) The standards are not being applied equally.

2) Some people don't know how to negotiate very well.

~Ruff "

" What a shining example of the pure uninformed arrogance. “Rag clad garbage pickers in the California back woods oppose progress” would be a great lead sentence for the gentrified attitude this piece represents.

Any one with a concern for the natural world we in habit is the enemy of progress is a sentimental description used to classify an entire area of northern California. Of course Nestlé Corp. is pure as the driven snow in its efforts to secure the newly found liquid gold and the obstructionist indigenes have no legitimate point to be observed.

Instead of delving into the reasons and history of economic development in this region a casual and flip representation of intensely colored opinion is offered as insight by a purported news junkie on vacation. The people in this area face serious problems deeply intertwined with a failing economic situation and the control of what they understand to be held in common, in this case water.

This is not an example of an area where people are all of one mind but rather an area where people are trying to come to grips with the reality of being distant from the powers that rule them and frustrated in their attempts to exercise control over their lives. They face important questions and decisions in their efforts to attract investment and preserve what they feel is and admirable beauty in their lives yet from the quaint vineyards of the holy elite beauty of the Napa Valley they are treated to a scenario not only lacking in insight but robust in denigrating characterization. "

" Small rural communities across America are anxious for economic development but often trade what makes them unique and attractive for less than real market value. What could be viewed as progress often entails trading significant control of natural resources, individual and property rights for unexceptional carrots. The perks of an extremely well connected corporation appear a superficial godsend to many of these communities yet on considered analysis these communities trade their autonomy to become corporate controlled entities.

A 100-year contract with a corporate giant Nestlé is something that requires close examination. Especially when made by a small group of local individuals that may have genuine interests but not the acumen to ascertain a good deal from a bad one and may also be blinded by offers without considering their total implications.

The opposition in Siskiyou County is not a group of save the universe wacko environmentalists but largely made up of business people and other local interests seeking a proper share for their community in what could be an important revenue generating enterprise. To blanket such efforts with snide references to unions of garbage scouring know-nothings or Luddites is hardly informative.

Close examinations of Nestlé’s behavior and promises in other similar communities might reveal that the original deal, the manner in which it was attempted, was less than legal and not necessarily open or conducive to the concerns of those communities. Many jobs turn out to be part time, not well paid and without benefits even by the lower rural standards these communities are willing to accept. The trade offs that rural communities make in an effort to improve their lot often do not return their fair value or even market value. "

" A proper share? How about no share at all then?

Its not the poor who are trying to stop this, as Kevin said. It is the well intentioned but sadly misguided environmentalists and liberals. Sometimes you can't look a gift horse in the mouth. "

" Or a Trojan horse from the other end. "

" Framing the issue as liberal or conservative one is a cute trick designed to misinform. Simply rolling over for a large corporation throwing out a bone is simply not a smart or wise plan for any community.

Since the original proposal agreed to by a small water district board without a wide and revealing general discussion, as say the one we are currently involved with over Napa
Pipe, has been scaled back and efforts to achieve better control of the Nestlé proposal.

Tarring the issue with hues of right and left do not enlighten the discussion. When mega corporations offer up gift horses to these communities those same communities had better look over their shoulder before they make decisions that have far reaching consequences for them. That is neither conservative nor liberal merely wise policy.

Not everyone in rural areas is a simple-minded rag a muffin rube pikin’ cans to survive. A few actually have the benefit of sharp business and entrepreneurial skills coupled with the ability to recognize that a deal to share that which the public holds in common, specifically the McCloud River and ground water, should not be relinquished for a simple song and dance but rather treated as a precious local resource that must be husbanded to receive a fair value for the community.

If it is conservative to accept any proposal on the original terms and liberal to object and seek better terms than your position may have merit. I doubt it.

All I can really see in much of this is the attitude that what ever the public holds in common should be freely turned over to mega corporations with little regard to acquiring any semblance of economic justice for those immediately affected. "

" The original Nestle/McCloud deal was negotiated behind closed doors and approved at the first public meeting - despite the protests of many present.

It gave Nestle exclusive right to the town's water for 100 years, and at 1/20th the market rate. And yes, that rate wouldn't go up over the life of the contract.

Its gets worse: this quiet little town would enjoy 300 semis rolling through 24/7/365 (24 hours).

Still think it was a great deal? The contract gave Nestle priority over the town's own residents.

In return for this sweetheart deal - and for building the single largest structure in Northern California right in the town - Nestle promised 300 jobs, but.... oh wait.

Most of the better-paying jobs would go to outside folks (an EcoNorthwest study showed us that was that pattern), and a quick look at Nestle's efforts elsewhere (you Googled Nestle before wroting this, right?) suggests they don't deliver the jobs promised.

In Florida, they promised 300 jobs to the state, but now employ 205 - 46 of which don't even come from Florida.

In other words, the locals ended up with less than half the jobs promised, and most of those aren't living wage jobs.

I could go on, but I'll take a second to point out that not one of my points about the deal would be classified as the rantings of an environmentalist.

This was just a bad deal, and the barrage of bad publicity and a wholly inadaquete EIR forced Nestle to nullify the contract and start over.

In short, you got it dead wrong. That's sloppy. "