11-6-08

 11-6-08Merced Sun-StarWal-Mart sets Supercenter sights on Merced CountyThe chain filed an application to build a store in Livingston...JONAH OWEN LAMBhttp://www.mercedsunstar.com/167/story/533929.htmlAnother Wal-Mart may be coming to a town near you.Wal-Mart announced today it will apply with the city of Livingston to build a 162,797-square-foot Super Wal-Mart store, a company spokesman said.As part of the Blueberry Crossing Development, just off Highway 99, Wal-Mart would be the anchor store for a 317,000-square-foot development, possibly including a hotel, conference center and commercial space, said Wal-Mart spokesman Aaron Rios. "We are filing an application with the city of Livingston," he said. The store would employ about 450 people, he added. Along with the variety of products usually found in Wal-Mart, the location would also have a full-scale grocery store.Former mayor and owner of Livingston True Value, Brandon Friesen, said Wal-Mart could be good or bad for the town."I don't mind them coming in as long as they pay their way," he said. While many cities fight against Wal-Mart. he said, since Livingston doesn't have a lot of retail stores, the giant retailer would fill a need.Nick Robinson, a local organizer with WARN, or Wal-Mart Alliance for Reform Now, said Wal-Mart has a record of mistreating its employees and paying them barely better than minimum wage. There are cases where Wal-Mart locked employees in the store and discriminated against workers because of their gender, he alleged. Wal-Mart, he said, is not all it's cracked up to be.Wal-Mart has denied similar allegations made in other parts of the country.Public NoticePUBLIC NOTICE OF DECISION IMPROVEMENTS IN A FLOODPLAINhttp://www.legalnotice.org/pl/mercedsun-star/ShowNotice.aspxCounty of Merced PUBLIC NOTICE OF DECISION IMPROVEMENTS IN A FLOODPLAIN The County of Merced intends to move forward with reconstruction of the home located at 9425 Brodrick, Planada, Ca. This action is necessary for health and safety reasons and to improve the living conditions of the residents of the home. The property is located within the 100-year floodplain. The action cannot be undertaken in any other location, and because the entire City of Planada is located in the 100-year floodplain, there is no practical alternative such as relocating the family elsewhere in the City. Flood mitigation measures have been identified and will be taken to minimize the effect of the reconstruction on the floodplain or an increase of flood hazard. It is the Countys judgment that the action will provide benefit to the affected household and it is not possible to assist the beneficiary outside the floodplain. Failure to provide assistance would result in the family continuing to live in unsafe, substandard, and/or overcrowded conditions. A more detailed description of the Countys decision and the flood area map are available for citizen review at the County of Merced Planning Department, 2222 M Street, Merced, Ca 95340. Comments may be made or sent to Robert A. Lewis, Development Services Director, County of Merced, 2222 M Street, Merced, Ca, 95340, (209) 385-7654. The County promotes fair housing and makes all programs available to low and moderate income families regardless of age, race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual preference, marital status or handicap.  Published on November 6, 2008 in the Merced Sun Star...Fresno BeeTAL CLOUD: San Joaquin settlement not worth the risk...Tal Cloud, president of Sunburst in Fresno and Families Protecting the Valleyhttp://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/wo/story/991211.htmlIf the San Joaquin settlement becomes law, it could force more than 300,000 eastside acres out of production and may cost more than a billion dollars to implement. It would bring the cost of water to well above $100 per acre foot. In short water years, it would even require farmers to pay for water with a risk of no water delivery. Irrigation district managers may tell you that it is better to settle this lawsuit now rather than risk going back to court. This might be true if we were still dealing with the "original" settlement that was signed in September of 2006, which included the water management goal (recirculation of water from the Delta to our counties), and equal priority given to the restoration goal. The original bill required the federal government to pay for the improvements required to move more water down river channels. The original settlement between Natural Resources Defense Council and Friant turned out to be a ruse, which allowed NRDC to gain a legal position to extract more water for fish. With three lawsuits filed against Central Valley water rights since the original settlement was adopted in 2006, we have no certainty that more suits will not be filed to increase water flows for salmon. In one such lawsuit, Judge Oliver Wanger reduced pumping in the Delta and ended any possibility that recirculation could be part of the settlement. This means water will run down the San Joaquin River to the ocean, lost forever. This is different from the 2006 agreement, which allowed for the water to be recirculated back to Friant for use on farms and in cities, achieving the second component of the settlement: the water management goal. The Wanger decision mandates that pumping out of the Delta will be reduced from January to June to the San Luis reservoir. If this ruling stays in effect, in critically dry years the exchange contractors could be forced to call on their historical water rights. Friant could lose 800,000 acre feet of the water that farmers have relied on in the past. The settlement will give away 250,000 acre feet of water with no assurance that farmers would not lose future water because of Wanger-type rulings. The current bill calls for no federal funding but will require the federal government to turn the San Joaquin River into a cold water fishery even though NRDC'S own report "In Hot Water" indicates that the water from behind Friant Dam is too warm to support a viable salmon population. Passing this federal legislation would set a historic precedent that would require additional water to be sent down the San Joaquin River if the 500 prescribed salmon do not return. Senate Bill 27 is set to return to the Senate on Nov. 17 for final markup before going to the House for a vote. Reps. Jim Costa and George Radanovich are sponsors of this bill, even though they say they oppose the removal of the funding and the fact that recirculation is not possible in the current bill. With no scientific proof that salmon will live in a warm water river like the San Joaquin, why are we willing to set a historical precedent when we could go back to court and fight for a sound and comprehensive water policy? The detrimental effect of this folly will be further exacerbated by the method the Bureau of Reclamation has arbitrarily chosen to assign water losses. Friant contractors will be required to supply restoration flows based on their total contract supply rather than what they have historically received. This results in those contractors having large Class 2 water contracts (Fresno Irrigation District, Tulare Irrigation District, Madera Irrigation District, Gravelly Ford Irrigation District, Arvin-Edison Water District, Chowchilla Water District and Lower Tule Irrigation District) suffering disproportionately larger losses than the Class 1 districts. These Class 2 districts represent 67.2% of the Friant service area. If you live in the Friant service area, you should contact your local Friant District board members and ask them how they voted on the settlement in 2006. Ask how they plan to vote in the next few days on the updated settlement that includes all of these amendments. The amended settlement includes no recirculation, no federal funding, no certainty of capping water losses, farmers paying for water in years without deliveries and priority of funding to downstream exchange contractors before any funding in the Friant service area. Stockton RecordMountain House campus in jeopardy?New Delta trustees want to re-evaluate south county site...Alex Breitlerhttp://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081106/A_NEWS/811060324STOCKTON - An unprecedented overhaul of the San Joaquin Delta College Board of Trustees could change the college's direction on its most controversial project: the Mountain House campus.Three of the four candidates elected Tuesday said they want to re-evaluate that south-county campus in favor of a site closer to the area's population centers.Just last month, the board agreed to pump an additional $49.3 million into Mountain House, leaving little Measure L bond money left over for other promised projects.That decision can be changed, said Mary Ann Cox, a former Delta administrator and, come December, a new trustee."I do believe we'll be able to handle Mountain House differently," Cox said Wednesday. "We have to.""I don't have all the information," she added. "We're new, and we'll be asking for every bit."Cox joins architect Steve Castellanos and university program developer Teresa R. Brown as the three trustees-elect calling for a re-evaluation of the Mountain House campus.Board member Ted Simas, who has long been critical of the Mountain House site, said Wednesday that he, too, would consider other options if they penciled out financially. That's four of seven trustees saying the door is open to change.Jennet Stebbins, who scored an upset victory Tuesday, said she believes Delta should stick with Mountain House. Too much money has been spent there, she said.Trustee Janet Rivera agrees, although she said she would change her original vote supporting Mountain House if she could."I think it's too late to go back," she said.Trustee Maria Elena Serna could not be reached for comment Wednesday.With an anti-Mountain House majority, the board could approach college administrators and ask them to consider other options. The $49.3 million recently approved for Mountain House has been allocated but not spent.But Delta President Raul Rodriguez said abandoning Mountain House could cost the college $30 million and lead to lawsuits by the private developer who is paying for the infrastructure there.The college is having enough difficulty backing out of a similar public-private partnership in Lodi, where a campus on Victor Road was recently abandoned, he said."I can't imagine pulling out of Mountain House," Rodriguez said.But he said the college will move at the direction of the new board.Earth is finally being turned on the south county campus after a years-long delay. Under the plan, portables are to be brought in until a permanent building can be constructed.Castellanos suggests leaving the portables there, preserving some kind of campus while freeing up dollars for a building elsewhere - perhaps in Tracy, where city officials say they're still willing to talk with the college about a previously-studied site on Chrisman Road.Critics of Mountain House say it's too far from most of Delta's students, and too close to Las Positas Community College on the west side of the Altamont Pass."Let's take a deep breath and look this over," said Brown, who represents the Tracy area. "I think the current board was trying to rush through decisions ... way too fast."Mountain House developer Gerry Kamilos could not be reached Wednesday, but he has said Delta's indecision over the location of its campus in Mountain House or Tracy probably cost the college millions of dollars in inflation.Contra Costa TimesCorrection: Livermore Lab...11-3-08http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_10889209A front-page headline Sunday incorrectly described the weapons testing work under way at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. The lab conducts testing on high explosives, which are non-nuclear and create the initial explosion in the chain of events leading to a nuclear detonation. There has never been testing at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory that leads to a nuclear detonation.Mercury NewsVoters approve high-speed rail; critics say it's a wild bet...Brandon Baileyhttp://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10908801Buoyed by voter approval of a $9.95 billion bond issue for high-speed rail, backers of a statewide bullet train said Wednesday that they're already working to line up the additional billions they will need to build a high-tech transit system linking the major cities of California.But critics of Proposition 1A, which won narrow approval after lagging in early returns Tuesday, continued to insist the project is an expensive boondoggle that may never be built.Early in the campaign, backers had stressed the environmental and transportation benefits that would come with high-speed trains whisking commuters from the Bay Area to Los Angeles in two and a half hours. But advocates on both sides of the measure agreed Wednesday that with the state drifting further into economic recession, the promise of several hundred thousand new jobs from building and operating the bullet train may have sealed the deal in recent weeks."It's a good transportation and environmental issue, but a much better jobs issue, like what FDR did to build us out of the Depression,'' said Rod Diridon Sr., a former Santa Clara County supervisor and a board member of the California High Speed Rail Authority, which would build and operate the system.With virtually all precincts counted, the measure was approved by 52.2 percent of voters, while 47.8 percent were opposed.Diridon said he and other backers have already begun seeking federal funds and talking with potential private sponsors to come up with the rest of the estimated $45 billion total cost for a 220 mph rail network linking San Francisco, San Jose, the Central Valley and Los Angeles — and eventually Sacramento, Oakland and San Diego. Critics continued to doubt those plans."They are wildly optimistic," said James Moore, a professor and director of the transportation engineering program at the University of Southern California. Moore said he believes the project's backers have overstated ridership projections and the trains' maximum speed in urban areas, while underestimating the costs of acquiring right-of-way, building the system and operating the trains.Still, many of the state's top political leaders endorsed the bond issue, along with business and construction interests, including the Silicon Valley Leadership Group.The rail network would be a boon for Silicon Valley because it would bring lower-priced housing in Central Valley communities within a comfortable commuting range of less than an hour's ride to the Bay Area, Diridon said. He added: "That makes it so much easier to recruit top talent."Backers have claimed the project will create 160,000 construction jobs and eventually 450,000 jobs in other industries that benefit from the transit network. Diridon, a driving force behind creation of Santa Clara County's light-rail system, said construction contracts could go out to bid by 2011 and an initial north-south line could be in operation by 2020.Los Angeles TimesA plan to slow home losses The plan is part of an economic stimulus package the governor expects to put before lawmakers to spur loan workouts...Mac Lifsher http://articles.latimes.com/2008/11/06/business/fi-foreclose6Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday proposed a 90-day freeze in pending home foreclosures to give California’s financially pinched homeowners more time to get new or more affordable loans.The governor unveiled a foreclosure relief and long-term mortgage reform initiative as part of an economic stimulus package that he plans to put before lawmakers in a special session of the Legislature scheduled to begin today.“The single most powerful action our state can take to shore up its economy is to help Californians stay in their homes,” Schwarzenegger said. “Curtailing foreclosures will stop the downward spiral of home prices, free up needed cash for homeowners, help save jobs and make an immediate positive impact on our economy.”The governor’s effort is meant to slow the pace of foreclosures that hit a record high of nearly 80,000 during the third quarter, according to research firm MDA DataQuick.The plan for “loan modifications” would be based on a formula proposed recently by Sheila Bair, chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., for rewriting tens of thousands of mortgages across the nation. Her plan emerged after the government’s seizure of Pasadena-based IndyMac Bank. Key to the governor’s plan is a 90-day delay in the legal process of foreclosing on a home after an owner-occupier has received a notice of default. Lenders could avoid the 90-day freeze under the plan if they proved they were aggressively rewriting loans so that homeowners could afford to make lower payments and avoid foreclosures.State officials say they expect a big demand for the loan modifications. But some financial institutions report that their early efforts have had limited success. IndyMac recently sent out 35,000 letters to homeowners offering new loan terms, but more than half the recipients did not respond.Consumer advocates, lobbyists for the mortgage industry and some legislators showed interest in the governor’s ideas but said they wanted to fully review the legislation.“What the governor has proposed is a good first step,” said Assemblyman Ted Lieu (D-Torrance), author of an anti-predatory lending bill that Schwarzenegger vetoed in September.Lieu said he was heartened that the governor had dusted off portions of his bill that would prevent some future foreclosures by cracking down on state-licensed brokers who put borrowers into loans that they cannot afford. “I’m pleased that the governor recognizes that banks and mortgage brokers are not capable of regulating themselves,” he said. “California has the responsibility and the obligation of raising the standards.”Making the governor’s plan work will depend on the administration giving regulators the tools needed to ensure that brokers don’t take advantage of borrowers, said Kevin Stein, associate director of the California Reinvestment Coalition, a San Francisco-based group that advocates for consumers and low-income communities.“There has to be real monitoring and enforcement,” he said.Leaders of the state Senate agreed that Sacramento needed to do more to help strapped homeowners. But they questioned whether the upcoming special session was the right time for action.The Legislature’s immediate focus needs to be on the quest to find new revenues and ways to cut spending to fill an estimated $11.2-billion hole in the current state budget. Schwarzenegger “may have cast this too broadly,” Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland) said.Approval of transit funds paves the way for new challengesVoters say yes to Proposition 1A and Measure R, but tough decisions remain...Rich Connell, Steve Hymon and Eric Baileyhttp://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-transportation6-2008nov06,0,4342940,print.storyFor decades, California officials complained that efforts to get traffic moving were stymied by a lack of money. But with apparent voter approval Tuesday of massive new financing schemes for both the state and Los Angeles County, transportation planners suddenly and somewhat unexpectedly have tens of billions coming for an array of rail, bus and traffic improvement projects. The gusher of tax dollars offers a rare chance to fix crucial parts of a transportation network choking on too many cars and commuters, experts say.Simultaneous approval of a high-speed rail line to link California's two major cities and a package of subway, light rail, highway and busway expansions in the state's most populous county marks "a huge step forward," said Dario Frommer, a member of the California Transportation Commission. In Los Angeles, where voters agreed to increase sales taxes to pay for up to $40 billion in projects, "we have a huge opportunity to transform [the county] in a way that's never been done before," said Richard Katz, a Metropolitan Transportation Authority board member and transit advisor to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. "Without being overly dramatic, this is as significant on the local level as Barack Obama's election on the national level."But now comes the more sobering, slogging challenge: delivering on the ambitious -- even grandiose -- expectations raised by the Proposition 1A and Measure R campaigns. "We are not out of the woods yet in terms of stabilizing and securing all the funding necessary for these projects," said Frommer, former majority leader of the state Assembly. One growing concern: State and federal lawmakers could pull back existing and anticipated matching funds for transportation projects because of the nation's deepening economic crisis.Indeed, the timing of the two transportation ballot measures, along with construction schedules and promises of congestion relief, were based in part on plans to wring more money from other sources. Chief among them is a giant federal transportation bill -- the first since 2005 -- to be crafted by Congress next year.But state and federal lawmakers face major budget deficits, coupled with declines in transportation tax dollars from gasoline sales, which have dropped as motorists drive less. Even with the new ballot measure money, including nearly $10 billion for the bullet train from the Bay Area to Southern California, some projects could be delayed or in jeopardy if current transportation allotments are cut back, Frommer said. "It's very complicated." With 100% of precincts reporting, Measure R narrowly exceeded the two-thirds vote required; the thousands of provisional and absentee ballots that remained to be counted were not expected to change the outcome. Proponents declared victory. At a Measure R news conference in the Wilshire Center, where the western spur of the Los Angeles subway ends, the head of the MTA told reporters that extension of a line to the Westwood-UCLA area could take 20 years. Hearing that, Villaraigosa quickly stepped to the microphone and vowed that he and other elected officials would aggressively pursue federal dollars to speed up the project."This is a big, physical project that we can't do overnight," MTA chief executive Roger Snoble later said. "There's a lot to it." But other local projects could begin relieving congestion within a year, officials said. Millions of dollars will begin flowing to cities, which can synchronize traffic signals, install left-turn lanes and pay for other improvements to unclog traffic, Katz said. Villaraigosa, who led the Measure R campaign, said Wednesday that the Gold Line light rail extension to the San Gabriel Valley would probably be one of the first projects built, along with the Expo Line from Culver City to Santa Monica. Both of those projects can now be paid for with local money and move ahead quickly, Katz said. There are still considerable obstacles for many projects. The first phase of the Expo Line is mired in a dispute over a pair of pedestrian crossings in South Los Angeles that could take months, if not years, to resolve. Another Measure R project, the Green Line rail extension to Los Angeles International Airport, still needs a commitment from the airport to build a people-mover system to get travelers from the train station to the terminals. Even if all goes well for the proposed 220 mph bullet train down the spine of the state, it won't be completed for at least 10 years, though some parts will be ready sooner. The first phase is supposed to wind from Anaheim through Los Angeles to Palmdale, then up the Central Valley to San Francisco. But questions remain about potential cost overruns and funding shortfalls. The initial leg alone is expected to cost millions of dollars more than the $9.95 billion in bonds that voters approved on Tuesday, meaning the state will have to find a partner in the private sector for a venture many view as financially risky."Even if nothing at all happens for years, this project will hang over our community, our towns and our state forever, like the mythical sword of Damocles, never actually going away but possibly never coming into existence," said Martin Engel, a longtime opponent. "It will be eternally short of funding; a bottomless hole in the ground."Quentin Kopp, chairman of the state's high-speed rail authority, vowed to "ride herd" on costs.He said doubters who claim the trains will cost more and deliver less speedy times than promoters predict are discounting positive reviews of California's plan by high-speed rail experts from France, Japan and Spain.The rail line will support greater housing density near stations and decrease pollution, he believes. "With the increasing California population," Kopp said, "it's inevitable."Whatever the challenges, the voter approval of the measures reflects broad public frustration and a demand for action, officials said."People are sick and tired of traffic," said Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, a key Measure R backer. "They were willing to pay for it. . . . Our job is to deliver on the promises."Beavers build a burrow and the town gives a damEight of the rodents who took up residence in a downtown creek in Martinez, Calif., are staying put despite a noisy construction project near their lodge, supporters say...Richard C. Paddockhttp://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-me-beavers6-2008nov06,0,4271662,print.storyReporting from Martinez, Calif. — Beavers that took up residence in a downtown creek here are staying put despite a noisy three-week construction project to shore up the bank near their lodge, relieved beaver supporters say.The eight beavers that live in Alhambra Creek near the city center have been spotted entering and leaving their lodge at dusk, even though workers drove 25-foot-long metal sheet piles into the ground a few feet from their burrow."The beavers are fine," said Linda Meza, a spokeswoman for the beaver support group Worth a Dam.But a new controversy over the project has emerged since Worth a Dam uncovered a photograph in the Martinez Museum showing that damage attributed to the beavers dates to at least 1999 -- seven years before the animals arrived.Meza said the photo proved what the group had been saying all along: The $400,000 construction project was unnecessary.Worth a Dam has criticized the City Council for improperly meeting in private on the issue and for bypassing an environmental review by declaring the situation an emergency. "The city was aware that the beavers were not burrowing under the retaining wall," Meza said. "The premise for this emergency work was based on lies."Martinez, located 35 miles northeast of San Francisco, was founded during the Gold Rush.The city of 37,000 boasts that it was the home of conservationist John Muir, but it has also been the site of a huge oil refinery for nearly a century.The first two beavers arrived in 2006, and since then they have been busy. They produced two kits, or baby beavers, last year and four more this year while building two lodges and four dams in the creek.After word of the beavers' presence spread, tourists began visiting Martinez to see them -- an unusual occurrence for the refinery town. But the property owner nearest the beaver habitat complained that the rodents were causing damage by burrowing into the bank and under the retaining wall. He threatened to sue the city if it didn't take action.City officials at first planned to kill the beavers but backed off after many residents protested. The City Council then voted to shore up the bank along a one-block stretch by driving sheet piles between the creek and the retaining wall.Beaver supporters opposed the project for fear the animals might be killed or driven off, but the large rodents have proved adaptable. With the last of the sheet piles in place, workers poured concrete between the piles and the retaining wall last week and finished filling in with dirt this week. Even so, the dispute continues.Last week, Worth a Dam uncovered the 1999 photograph of the creek taken when the water level was unusually low. The group says the photo clearly shows that a crack in the retaining wall was already evident. Worth a Dam accuses the City Council of going ahead with the project to pacify an influential property owner even though it knew the beavers had not caused the problem."They met in secret, voted in secret, omitted in secret and lied in public," wrote Worth a Dam President Heidi Perryman in a post on the group's website."They spent nearly half a million of your taxpayer dollars on a Faustian contract that had nothing to do with public safety."In an interview, City Manager Phil Vince defended the decision but declined to say whether the council was aware that damage to the retaining wall predated the beavers' arrival."I don't think it was a misguided project whatsoever," he said. "We have invested a ton of time and effort to make this happen, and I am not interested in revisiting history."Vince said that although some residents see protecting the beavers as a waste of money, he believes it is good for Martinez's quality of life to have the animals living downtown. He hopes the city can develop a long-term plan to protect its wildlife."I'm glad the beavers have stayed," he said. "Beavers on the whole are pretty resilient. They took it in stride."CNN MoneyForecast 2009: Your homeThe prediction: Prices will fall further before year-end...Stephen Gandelhttp://money.cnn.com/2008/11/04/pf/forecast_home3.moneymag/index.htm?postversion=2008110605Money Magazine) -- Forget the old saw that all real estate is local. What's pummeling housing prices in your nabe is the same thing that's hurting them around the country: the credit crisis.You know the drill - banks' troubles have made it harder for many home buyers to get mortgages, and those who do qualify have to pay more. A borrower with good credit and a 20% down payment recently got charged an interest rate of 6.7%, on average, according to HSH Associates.It's true that this rate is not historically high (rates often surpassed 9% in the early 1990s). But it's more than the 6.2% that the same borrower would have paid at the beginning of 2008.The fact that mortgage rates have remained stubbornly elevated despite the government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac leads some experts to believe that those rates are not headed down anytime soon.Talkback: What's your forecast?Then look at the fact that 18.6 million homes in this country are now sitting vacant, more than at any other time since the Census Bureau began tracking that figure in the 1960s. And that 2.8% of U.S. mortgage loans are now at least three months in arrears, up from 1.4% a year ago. That rate is projected to peak in early 2009.But if a recession lasts for three-quarters of the year, as some economists are predicting, the number of foreclosures could remain high longer. Add it all up and you have another lousy year for real estate.Home prices are down 20% nationwide since their peak in July 2006, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller home price index. Economist Nouriel Roubini of New York University, who accurately predicted the housing slide and credit crisis, expects another 20% decline in home prices next year. Patrick Newport of economic forecasting firm Global Insight projects a 15% drop.The damage will likely hit even areas that have so far escaped many problems, such as New York City (see the chart on the previous page). "We don't see the market turning until late 2009," says Newport.The wild card٠ How much home values fall early in the yearIf they go so low that investors can start renting out homes for enough to cover their mortgage payments, we could see a wave of people snapping up bargain houses in 2009 - which could push prices higher by the time the next 12 months draw to a close.Lawrence Yun, chief economist of the perpetually optimistic National Association of Realtors, says he expects prices to rise 2.8% in 2009.The action plan if you're selling:٠ Wait it outIn 2010, real estate should be stronger, with fewer homes clogging the market. So if you can wait until then to sell, do it. "I would," says Barbara Brin, a real estate agent in Minneapolis. And if even realtors are saying that...٠ Make your place shineIn many markets, sellers will face the toughest competition not from fellow homeowners but from banks and builders. Both will be willing to cut prices dramatically to sell a foreclosed or new home.To convince buyers that your house is worth paying up for, make sure that it's in move-in condition (foreclosures almost certainly won't be). Point out unusual qualities like wide-plank floors or stained glass that cookie-cutter new construction lacks.٠ Price it below marketGo to Zillow.com to see how much nearby homes fetched recently. Once you've figured out what a buyer might pay, price your house 5% below that.Sound painful? A recent study by a New Jersey appraiser found that houses priced below market ended up selling for more than similar houses listed above market. That's because lower prices attract more buyers.If you're buying:٠ Look for homes that have been sitting aroundIn many areas of the country, such as Phoenix, San Diego and Washington, D.C., it's common for perfectly good homes to linger on the market for six months or more. So start your search by looking for properties that have been up for sale for at least three months: At that point most sellers will be willing to deal.Drive a hard bargain when you find a house you're interested in. Sellers know you have a lot to choose from. They also know that if they wait they will probably get less. So offer less now.Barry Miller, a buyer's agent in Denver, suggests you make your first offer as much as 13% below the seller's asking price. "You might not get the house for that, but it's a good starting point," he says.٠ Improve your credit scoreMore than ever, that three-digit number could cost you. Lenders have begun imposing fees for everyone who doesn't fall into the top tier of credit - and that's a whole lot of people."Let's say 680 got you the best rate on a mortgage 24 months ago," says John Ulzheimer, a credit expert with Credit.com. "Today you need to shoot for 780 to 820 to get the best deal."Boosting your credit score from 660 to just 740 can lower your mortgage rate by a quarter of a point. To improve your score, focus on paying down debt, which will bring your crucial debt-to-credit ratio down.Mounting job losses fueling foreclosuresBad loans were originally the main culprit driving homeowners into foreclosure. But now it's unemployment that's fueling the mortgage meltdown...Les Christiehttp://money.cnn.com/2008/11/04/real_estate/job_losses_fuel_foreclosure/index.htm?postversion=2008110613NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- For years, bad loans and their aftershocks have been sending homeowners into foreclosure. Now its lost jobs that are putting troubled borrowers over the edge. As the economy tanks, unemployment is the major factor driving a much larger proportion of foreclosures now than in the earlier stages of the mortgage meltdown. In June, 45.5% of all delinquencies reported by Freddie Mac (FRE, Fortune 500) were due to unemployment or the loss of income, according to the company. That's a rise from a level of 36.3% in 2006."The two economic factors that most contribute to foreclosures are falling home prices and rising unemployment," said Richard DeKaser, chief economist for National City Corp (NCC, Fortune 500). "It's hard to pay your mortgage when you don't have a job." And that's a situation that more and more people are finding themselves in. Nearly one million Americans have lost their jobs so far in 2008. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in early October that 159,000 private sector jobs were lost in September, and on Friday, economists expect the BLS to report that 200,000 jobs were lost in October. "The rise in job losses will increase and extend the delinquency trend," said Doug Duncan, the chief economist for mortgage giant Fannie Mae (FNM, Fortune 500). Foreclosures spiked 71% in September alone according to RealtyTrac. A double whammyChris Berio, a Long Island N.Y. man, worked in two industries that have been particularly hard-hit by layoffs. During the boom he worked in construction as a steam fitter, while also moonlighting as a mortgage broker on the side. The 28-year-old was very confident when he bought a $350,000 fixer-upper in Deer Park in 2006, taking an 11% mortgage to finance it.In 2007, he lost both of his jobs in quick succession. "I went from making good money to nothing," said the married father of two kids. Berio was one of the lucky ones; he got his mortgage modified this past September, reducing his interest rate to just 5%. "The number of people we're helping has tripled," said Sal Pane, founder of the for-profit Amerimod Modification Agency that helped Berio. "And much of the increase in our business is due to job loss."But Berio has found a new job, working in what should be a growth industry for years: He's become a foreclosure prevention counselor.Of course the housing crisis is driving unemployment which in turn has exacerbated the housing crisis - particularly in bubble states like Florida, Nevada and Arizona.The unemployment rate in Florida was just 3.3% in May 2006, when the subprime crisis began to emerge - far below the national average of 4.7% at the time. Today Florida's rate stands at 6.6%, well above the current national average of 6.1%Jacksonville resident Paula Seabrooks lost her mortgage brokerage company this year in the wake of the Florida economy's deterioration. She has worked in the industry since 2001, first as a contract underwriter for companies such as Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500) then opening her own business. Her income dropped from nearly six figures in 2006 to less than $20,000 last year. Seabrooks bought a $165,000 home in March 2006, financing it with a hybrid adjustable rate mortgage (ARM), which recently reset to 8.375% interest."I thought I'd be doing well," she said, "I took the low rate, intending to refinance within two years."She has a new job but it pays only $38,000 a year - not nearly enough to afford her $1,400 monthly mortgage bill, much less to make up the five months of missed payments and fees that now total about $11,000. She's seeking a loan modification with the help of counselors from the National Community Reinvestment Coalition.Ironically, her new job involves handling applications from people seeking to refinance their own unaffordable mortgages into FHA-insured loans. "Every other loan application I get, it seems, either the wife or the husband is unemployed," she said.Dark days in the Golden StateLike Florida, California has seen its economy devastated by the housing meltdown. Foreclosure prevention counselors now have far more clients seeking help because their jobs disappeared, rather than because their ARMs are resetting.Now, Lobo says that he's seeing mostly middle-class Americans who have lost their jobs, exhausted their savings and investments and can't pay their bills.One of his clients was employed for years by a used car dealer and had worked his way up to a management position. With auto sales way down, he got laid off and now can't pay his $240,000 mortgage or his $60,000 home equity loan.With the auto industry on the ropes, his chances of finding work in his original line of work are diminishing. The unemployment rate in the Chico metro area has climbed to 8.1%, up two percentage points over the past 12 months.If that keeps up, more Chico homeowners will be visiting both the unemployment office and their local foreclosure prevention counselors.CounterPunchWill We Be Coerced Into Selling Off Our Public Lands? Privatizing the Public Estate...WILLIAM WILLERS...11-05-08 http://www.counterpunch.com/willers11052008.html“Selling public lands can help reduce the drain on the treasury” –Terry Anderson, 2006There is nothing as priceless in a physical sense that Americans can bequeath their descendents than the public domain – national parks, national forests, bureau of land management (BLM) lands and wildlife refuges that, collectively, make up a third of the nation. These, at least for now, belong equally to all 300 million U.S. citizens, billionaire and pauper alike. But a “private sector” that has bought everything from networks to congressmen has our lands in its crosshairs, and in recent decades right wing economists and legal advisors have devised strategies aimed at their privatization, a goal furthered by repeated reductions of the budgets of land management agencies, allegedly in the interest of “streamlining” government. What puts this issue on front burner now is a skyrocketing national debt of well beyond ten trillion dollars, nearly the size of the entire U.S economy and requiring the National Debt Clock to drop its $ sign in order to make room for the additional digit.Efforts by private interests to gain control of public lands have evolved from the “Sagebrush Rebellion” of the 1970s, through the “Wise Use Movement”, and into so-called “free-market environmentalism” consisting of a politically powerful and massively funded network of industrial interests and conservative foundations and think tanks pushing privatization via such means as “competitive outsourcing” and “public-private partnerships”. Now, as we learn that Wall Street entities that crashed are so “systemically critical” to society that they are “to big to fail”, and that there is no salvation other than from the federal treasury (taxpayers), what are we to do with this longer-range issue of the ballooning national debt? A family in financial crisis would logically sell of some of its possessions, but at national level what can be liquidated? It’s a pertinent question, and the public domain would surely figure in any ensuing discussion, for what else do We The People own of such immense monetary value?REAGAN AND HIS REVOLUTIONThe architects of free market environmentalism have been candid. Writing in the Cato Journal in 1981, for example, James Beckwith laid out a stepwise plan for privatizing public parks (although applicable to public lands in general) that would begin by encouraging volunteerism. His strategy was for “… ascending radicalism from reform through volunteerism and privatization of services to the outright abolition of public ownership and the transfer of parks to private parties.”Beckwith knew that a sudden takeover would trigger reaction and therefore proposed that privatization be introduced by degrees, with “the most tentative step” being recruitment of volunteers and later “the contracting out of support services to private firms operating for profit”. (Volunteerism, in this era of Bush/Cheney, is being pushed hard ). Later, Beckwith wrote, “existing public parks could either be given away or sold to the highest bidder.” In such a scenario, we citizens, the former owners, would become “customers”. In a monument to the ruthlessness and sterility of economic logic, he wrote “The gate fee could cover such hard-to-charge-for amenities as the sky, broad vistas, and fragrant flowers.”Beckwith’s essay had been prepared for a 1980 conference, “Property Rights and Natural Resources: A New Paradigm for the Environmental Movement”, a strategy session for “free-market environmentalism” sponsored by the Cato Institute and the Center for Political Economy and Natural Resources. In it, he cited the assistance of John Baden and Terry Anderson, both of whom are now, nearly three decades later, principal advocates of “free-market environmentalism” and major figures in the effort to privatize public lands.One of the many organizations and “think tanks” advocating for privatization of the public’s assets, and reliance on market mechanisms rather than regulation of industry, is the Property & Environment Research Center (PERC) whose director is Terry Anderson, author of the introductory quote above. Anderson was lead author of a disturbing 1999 policy paper, also published by Cato, “How and Why to Privatize Federal Lands”, in which he advanced a breathtakingly insidious plan to privatize public domain by allocating to citizens “shares” that could then be sold on the open market where, obviously, poor citizens would be quick to sell. But even the middle class, saddled with mortgages and medical and tuition bills, would in time need to cash out to a corporate sector and a billionaire set waiting on the sidelines. According to Anderson’s vision, this transfer into a small private ownership would take 20-40 years – one or two generations. In 2000, as George W. Bush was running for the Presidency, Terry Anderson became his advisor on public lands issues.THE “W” ERAA principal “surge” of the Bush Administration is to privatize as much of society as possible. Privatization of military operations has been especially newsworthy due to actions of mercenary companies in Iraq, such as Blackwater. In 2003, Bush made known his goal of outsourcing as many as 850,000 federal positions, and that same year, Interior Secretary Gale Norton announced intention to privatize more than 16,000 jobs in the U.S. Park Service, nearly 72%. In 2006 alone, 150,000 volunteers worked five million hours in the U.S. Park Service’s “Volunteers in the Parks” program, thus replacing 2451 full time positions, even as Bush’s budgets encouraged private investment. As of 2007, Bush called for a billion dollar private investment in the Park System by 2016. Private sector contracting is also underway in the U.S. Forest Service, the BLM, and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.In 2005, Republican Richard Pombo, then head of the House Resources Committee, and an advocate for privatizing public land, spearheaded an unsuccessful attempt to allow holders of mining claims on public land to buy the land outright. But the language of the bill, which could have resulted in hundreds of millions of acres of public lands being privatized, was so nebulous that a New York Times editorial labeled the bill “a blatant fraud on the American people, expressed in bland legislative legalese.” The following year, a “revenue-sharing” plan for the sale of BLM land would have sent 70% of the proceeds directly to the Federal Treasury. Environmentalist Janine Blaeloch, director of the Western Lands Project, argued that “The worry is the link between the deficit and selling these lands; … That concept has now been put forth so many times by the Bush Administration that people will become indifferent to the proposal. This will further entrench that whole philosophy.”Public Domain needn’t necessarily be taken from us in a single assault but in bits and pieces and by creatively deceptive policies. In 2007, for example, The U.S. Forest Service, relying on public concerns about global warming, announced a “Carbon Capital Fund” that would allow a citizen to “offset” personal CO2 emissions by buying vouchers, the cash then to be used for tree planting in national forests. In other words, the government is seeking voluntary donations from citizens for management of public forests historically administered from the tax base.A rising application of “user fees” of various sorts is also a central aspect of the privatization agenda. User fees exclude much of the population from their own lands by “rationing access”, to use the words of Beckwith in his landmark 1981 proposal. “If the price of recreation is raised”, Beckwith wrote, “less of it will be demanded by consumers”. Note that he sees Americans as consumers, not as owners. As in the case of the “health industry”, such user fees naturally deny access to lower income Americans, a factor of no apparent concern to free-marketeers. User fees have elicited considerable public reaction.Other schemes exist to privatize public land, and they invariably connect to industry-backed efforts to devolve public lands to state and local control and, at the same time, to solidify the sanctity of private property. One organization on this path is the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE), whose director, John Baden, a former member of the National Petroleum Council, has called for a shift of control of public land from “green platonic despots in D.C.” to “local interests”. In this, he mirrors Beckwith, who, in his 1981 proposal to privatize parks, wrote that “it is essential that property rights in the parks be defined, transferred, and enforced”. What makes FREE particularly noteworthy is that it gives workshops designed specifically for federal judges, state supreme court justices, law professors, religious leaders, and what it calls “social entrepreneurs”. FREE has been able to boast that a third of the federal judiciary has attended, or has applied to, its seminars, a troubling fact given that one of the seminars is titled “Liberty and the Environment: A Case for Principled Judicial Activism”.U.S. governmental analyst Richard C. Cook has laid out his step-by-step analysis of how the Federal Reserve, Wall Street and the U.S. Government engineered the housing bubble and the resulting financial collapse that has yielded a level of anxiety in U.S. citizens not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s. That noted, what is a society driven to such a level of fear willing to give up? While arguments and strategies for selling off our public lands have not yet met with major success, they lurk in the background like loaded guns. The fact that on every citizen’s head is a $34,000 debt that is growing cancerously is itself becoming an ever-stronger argument for liquidation of our land. Privatization can take place before the public is aware, for laws allowing such measures can be hidden within massive spending bills and voted on by members of Congress who have had little time for critical review and hence no understanding of many of the bill’s details. And as legal machinery is being set up for such a takeover, who would warn the people? Brokaw or Williams of NBC/General Electric? Gibson or Stephanopoulos of ABC/ Disney? Any of the wealthy “journalists” reporting for the corporate “persons” that now own the networks and that would certainly be big winners in any privatization model?Beckwith, Cato, PERC, FREE … these are just parts of a much larger system aimed at the transfer of public domain into private hands. The web is so vast, and its interests can be advanced through so many guises, that paths can be difficult to follow. Its program is advancing rapidly now that the nation’s citizens, already focused on terrorism and foreign wars, have been placed in panic mode by an economy in shambles and a Treasury Secretary and Wall Street profiteer named Paulson who, when he stares into the camera and says “We had no choice”, is really telling Americans “You have no choice”.Bill Willers is emeritus professor of biology, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, founder of Superior Wilderness Action Network (SWAN) and editor of "Learning to Listen to the Land" and "Unmanaged Landscapes", both from Island Press. MarketWatchMARKET SNAPSHOTU.S. stocks accelerate slide as economy weighsDow industrials close down nearly 500 points; S&P finishes below 1,000...Kate Gibson...11-05-08http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/US-stocks-end-sharply-down/story.aspx?guid=%7B230A4A71%2D57AD%2D4ED4%2D837B%2DBDFE33B07513%7DLast update: 4:41 p.m. EST Nov. 5, 2008Comments: 486NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- U.S. stocks hastened their sharp declines, erasing the largest Election Day gains in more than two decades, as investors pondered the task ahead for President-elect Barack Obama in confronting the poor shape of the economy."Obama's honeymoon with the markets was a short one as stocks unwound their Election-Day relief rally... as the credit and financial mountain remains a tall one to climb," said analysts at Action Economics. The potential for a deep U.S. recession and the worst global financial crisis since the Great Depression gives Obama little time to bask in the afterglow of his victory, economists said. Read more. "Yesterday's market action was in anticipation of an Obama victory -- it looks like more of a landslide -- now we're down to business and the market is going to wait until he talks about an economic plan," said Peter Cardillo, chief market economist at Avalon Partners. Stocks quickened the pace of their losses in afternoon trade, with financial shares hammered the hardest. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell more than 500 points. The blue-chip index ended at 9,139.27, off 486.01 points, or 5.1%... Financial TimesCrude’s rally cools as dollar advances...Esther Bintliff in London...11-05-08 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f990edee-ab36-11dd-b9e1-000077b07658.htmlCommodity prices fell on Wednesday, giving away some of Tuesday’s strong gains, after the US dollar strengthened on the back of Barack Obama’s election victory and fears of a downturn in global industrial production returned. The bearish sentiment was accentuated by UBS, the Swiss bank, who cut its forecast for commodities across-the-board for the second time in a month. “The contraction in credit and finance is unlikely to reverse in the near-term and the impact on the real economy will continue to reverberate over the next two years,” Daniel Brebner, of UBS in London, wrote in a report. Among the key commodities, the bank said oil prices will average $60 a barrel in 2009 and $75 in 2010. It is also forecast a 40 per cent drop next year in iron ore prices, followed by a 5 per cent reduction in 2010. “’Hecatomb’ is defined as a large scale slaughter,” Mr Brebner said. “Given the rout in commodity markets … this word is, unfortunately, appropriate in characterising the current and likely near-term environment for commodities markets,” he added. In the oil markets, Nymex December West Texas Intermediate fell $2.67 to $67.86 a barrel. In the previous session, crude had gained 10.4 per cent to trade above $70 a barrel. ICE December Brent lost $2.41 cents to $64 a barrel, paring Tuesday’s 9.9 per cent advance. Robert Laughlin at MF Global in London said: “Oil prices rallied strongly yesterday as US election fever reached it’s crescendo. Prices have slipped back overnight as we were overdone on the upside, and we’re seeing a stronger dollar on the back of the Obama victory.”The dollar rose to an intraday high of $1.3031 against the euro, although it later traded at about $1.2950. Gold was also hurt by the dollar’s advance, sliding 1.5 per cent in early trade to $753 a troy ounce, but it later moved into positive territory, trading in London at $759.70 an ounce. Platinum prices hit a two-week high at $875 an ounce after Anglo Platinum, the world’s leading producer of the metal, said it had shut down its one of its smelters. The company did not give a reason for the measure. Base metals were lower, led by copper, which fell 5.3 per cent to $4117 a tonne, as inventories continued to rise at London Metal Exchange’s warehouses.Copper stockpiles increased by 5,825 tonnes on Wednesday, to a total 247,475 tonnes. Copper has lost over half its value since its July high of $8,850, but was still 10.5 per cent higher than it’s three year closing low of $3,715 on October 24.Lead sank 2.3 per cent to $1,515, while nickel fell 3.4 per cent to $12,550. Tin bucked the trend, adding 0.3 per cent to $14,700, bolstered by recent news of production cuts in Indonesia and China, the two largest producers of the metal. Aluminium was 0.9 per cent lower at $2090 a tonne. Violent fuel price protests in Guinea forced a subsidiary of the Russian aluminium producer Rusal to halt trains carrying alumina for export in Guinea on Tuesday. Rusal is the second largest alumina refiner in the world, and its subsidiary, Friguia, is Guinea’s sole refiner of bauxite, the raw ore used to produce alumina.  11-6-08Meetings11-12-08 MCAG Technical Review Board Meetinghttp://www.mcagov.org/trb.htmlNov.  20 - Governing Board Meeting        City of Merced November meetingshttp://www.cityofmerced.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=6744Nov. 17 City Council/Redevelopment agency, 7:00 p.m.        19 Planning Commission, 7:00 p.m. ...To be cancelled Merced County Hearing Officer meeting...8:30 a.m.http://www.co.merced.ca.us/planning/pdf/hearing/2008/111708ka.pdfNov. 17   Regular Meeting Has Been Cancelled Merced County Board of Supervisors...10:00 a.m.http://www.co.merced.ca.us/bos/pdfs/bos_calendar.pdfNov. 18, 2008      Merced County Planning Commission November meetings...9:00 a.m.http://www.co.merced.ca.us/planning/pdf/schedule.pdfNov. 19, 2008 11-20-08 Merced County General Plan Updatehttp://www.co.merced.ca.us/gpu/Community Workshopshttp://www.co.merced.ca.us/gpu/focusgroup/update.htmMerced County will be hosting the final set of 15 community workshops throughout the county to gain community feedback on growth alternatives presented in the Alternatives Report.By 2030, Merced County is expected to grow to approximately 440,000 people, a net increase of 196,000 people (or 45 percent). The County must now select the overall growth philosophy and course of action for guiding the physical development within the county. The challenge for the County will be to determine where and how growth should occur in order to protect valuable farmland and natural resources while still meeting the needs of its growing population. The Alternatives Report identifies three potential growth alternatives that will enable the decision makers and the community to weigh possible futures. The Alternatives Report can be downloaded from the General Plan Update website at www.co.merced.ca.us/gpu/documents.html.After the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission thoroughly review the growth alternatives and receive community feedback from the workshops, the Board will select a preferred alternative. Since the growth alternatives need not be mutually exclusive, the Board may select elements of two or more alternatives. The preferred alternative, which will also include a set of preferred policy options, will then become the basis for the General Plan Policy Document.All workshops will be held from 7:00 to 9:00 PM. The dates and locations for the workshops are as follows:HilmarHilmar Grange Hall 8188 Lander Ave.Nov. 10LeGrand LeGrand Community Center13038 Jefferson Ave.Nov. 10Delhi Sarah Jane Clegg Conference Room16091 Locust Street Nov. 12Dos Palos "Y"Dos Palos Y Service Club8083 Dairy Lane Nov. 12UC Merced/North Merced Kolligian Library, Room 2325200 N. Lake Road, Merced Nov. 17Santa Nella Ramada Inn, Balboa Room  13070 State Hwy. 33 Nov. 17Snelling Snelling School Cafeteria16099 State Hwy. 59 Nov. 17Ballico/CresseyBallico Veterans Hall 11305 Ballico Ave.Nov. 18Planada Planada Community Center 9167 E. Stanford Ave.Nov. 18Midway/Dos Palos George Washington Carver Center21476 Reynolds Ave. Dos Palos Nov. 18Franklin/Beachwood Franklin School Cafeteria 2736 N. Franklin Rd.Nov. 19Winton Winton Community Hall 7091 Walnut Ave.Nov. 19Los Banos Los Banos Fairgrounds, Germino Building 403 F Street Nov. 20McSwain McSwain School Cafeteria (West Campus) 926 N. Scott RoadNov. 20South MercedAlicia Reyes Elementary School 123 South N Street, MercedNov. 20If you have any questions about the workshops, please contact Bill Nicholson, Assistant Development Services Director, at 209.385.7654 or email bnicholson@co.merced.ca.us.