Questions we will be asking and investigating?
1 Who is Charles Shaw of El Dorado Hills Ca?
2 Why is Charles Shaw spending the time and effort building a detailed
smear website for the Nelson Ranch and it's owners, including supporters? Is Brenda Cedarblade's personal life relevant? Is it right to dig up dirt on her deceased parents? Are Brenda's deceased parents fair game in this libelous smear campaign?
3 Is the information on Charles Shaw's Historic Nelson Ranch Scandal smear website fair & accurate? So far libelous statements pepper the website!
4 What is Matt Rexroad's interest in the Clark Pacific Plant?
5 What is Matt Rexroad's connection to Charles Shaw of El Dorado Hills Historic Nelson Ranch Scandal smear website?
6 Should Matt Rexroad be representing Brenda; Matt Rexroad's constituent's best interest or be promoting a smear website from an out of town who may have trespassed on property to take outdated photos? Is Matt Rexroad getting even for Brenda's campaign against?
7 Are Brenda Cedarblade's health concerns fair?
8 Would you welcome a cement plant moving in next door to your ranch?
9 A few short term union good paying jobs are at stake; Should Brenda be able to stand in the way of those jobs?
10 Do the folks of Yolo County just outside of Woodland really want their community turned into a black top of big box retail stores and polluting cement plants, or remain strictly an agriculture community?
11 Why would Marlene Botter go after the Historic Nelson Ranch CUP, The fact that Marlene Botter is a competitor would have nothing to do with it; now would it?
12 Why would Yolo County practice selective code enforcement, when Marlene Botter's own ranch could have violations too?
13. Sacramento's new airport represents a billion dollar construction project for Clark Pacific, the new Woodland plant would be within miles of the project. Is it the Sacramento's Builders Exchange or is Clark Pacific behind funding the massive smear campaign against those opposed to the project? Or Both?
These are just questions we will be exploring over the next couple of months, As information comes and verified we will report it here. We promise to be fair to all concerned.
The ERN News Team
It always concerns us here in the independent media when a big corporate Goliath or whoever sends out their attack dogs to launch an expensive smear campaign on a small independent ranch owner. Regardless of what the community of Woodland or Yolo County may think of Brenda Cedarblade; this sets a dangerous precedent if allowed to go unchecked and without challenge. We intend to be that watchdog that sees to it that Brenda Cedarblade is treated fairly and with respect. We are going to demand that Matt Rexroad represent his constituent Brenda Cedarblade first and not an out of town smear merchant, how dare Matt Rexroad aid anybody in the smearing of one of his constituents.
Our early investigation shows that Brenda Cedarblade's contact information is readily available on her Historic Nelson Ranch website and has been confirmed to be accurate by us. On the other hand; no such information is available on Charles Shaw's smear website: Historic Nelson Ranch Scandal, and is denied when asked; we obtained Charles Shaw's information from an independent source.
Our early investigation reveals that just about every county and state agency one can think of has given Brenda's business the once over and sometimes twice at the repeated request of a disgruntle citizen. Turns out the state owned Brenda money! Perhaps we should be fair and verify that Charles Shaw's house is in order, as it stands now Charles Shaw does not have to live next to the plant in question, Brenda does! It is of her concern; not Charles Shaw of El Dorado Hills, California and Brookings, Oregon at this point we suggest that Charles be a good neighbor and invite the plant to move in next door to his home in Brookings OR.
We started this investigation at the request of a concerned citizen do to Charles Shaw's overly aggressive attacks on Brenda Cedarblade's personal character, which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact Brenda does not want a cement plant moving in next door. It always raises a red flag with this reporter; when attack dogs go after anybody, especially to the extent Charles and others are going after Brenda; for us; it was and is overkill! We have yet to report to the extent these individuals are going after Brenda, to us; it's brutal and uncalled for, and will not be tolerated by this or any other reporter in our organization. If it does not stop, it will be shared with the world.
Our investigation has only just begun, we promise what is to become will be an eye opener to everyone who sees and hears it! Video will be available when the investigation is concluded and the report is aired on our stations!
Richard Van Owen
Equestrian Radio Network
Nelson Ranch owners sue
They claim the lime pile dust is choking their horses and harming business.
By CRYSTAL LEE
Article Created: 04/26/2008 05:44:21 AM PDT
The owners of Historic Nelson Ranch in Woodland have filed a suit against Yolo County and Clark Pacific for what they say is a violation of state laws regulating environmental safety.
On April 1, the Yolo County Board of Supervisors approved the precast concrete company's request to rezone and operate on land formerly used by Spreckels Sugar Mill to process sugar beets.
Brenda Cedarblade and husband Ted Wilson, owners of the horse ranch, claim the review process for the project was insufficient and violated the California Environmental Quality Act.
Through their attorney Don Mooney, the couple filed a petition with the Yolo Superior Court on April 9 to halt the project and retract the supervisors' approval.
Phone calls to Cedarblade and Mooney were not returned by press time Friday. However, Mooney previously stated that the county's "mitigated negative declaration" was insufficient and the county should have done an environmental impact report, which is a much more thorough review process.
Senior Deputy County Counsel Phil Pogledich said the allegations are unfounded. County staff determined that any negative impacts from the project, at County Road 18C and Highway 113, could be minimized or eliminated through mitigation measures and an environmental impact report was unnecessary, Pogledich said.
The court hearing will probably occur in early 2009, Pogledich said.
Aside from the lawsuit, Mooney had sent a letter to Clark Pacific requesting the company to stop the removal of lime piles on the property. The lime was a byproduct from sugar processing and is being gradually removed under a mandate by the State Regional Water Quality Control Board in December 2001.
Mooney's letter, sent on April 4, alleges that the removal process is causing a significant amount of dust to create a "fog that you could not breath in" at the horse ranch, which is to the east of the property.
"(As) a direct result of the contamination from the ... dust, a number of people have removed their horses from the Ranch, which has resulted in ... significant financial loss to the Ranch," Mooney states.
The letter also demands compensation to Cedarblade and Wilson.
"Clark Pacific must take immediate remedial action in order to prevent the ... dust from blowing onto adjacent properties. Additionally, Clark Pacific must reimburse the Historic Nelson Ranch for all of the damages suffered resulting from the nuisance created by the removal of the (lime) piles," Mooney states.
The letter does not indicate any intention to seek legal action over the lime removal.
Clark Pacific Marketing Manager Thomas Ketron said the letter is and the company has not responded to it.
The lime removal has been going on for many years, since before Clark Pacific bought the property in February, and the implication that the precast company is stirring up more dust than usual is false, Ketron said.
Ketron said that despite the letter and the lawsuit, the company is focusing on proceeding with the project.
"We don't believe that there's been a loss related to our operations," Ketron said. "We just feel that the lawsuit is frivolous and without merit."
Cedarblade's public statements against the project have even riled up some who do not appear to be directly affected by the dispute.
At the April 22 Board of Supervisors meeting, Marlene Botter, who co-owns a horse ranch on County Road 100A, filed a formal complaint against Cedarblade.
Botter asked the county to investigate what appears to be violations of "conditional use permit" regulations at the Nelson Ranch.
Although the complaint is unrelated to the Clark Pacific lawsuit, Botter noted Cedarblade should be "held to the same standard of compliance that she is imposing on others."
A similar sentiment is expressed on "Historic Nelson Ranch Scandal," a "blog" site that appeared online on April 18. The blogger, who goes by the name "Charles Shaw," has posted 27 entries with titles such as "Those Who Live in Glass Houses Shouldn't Throw Stones."
Some entries include photos of the ranch in disarray while others examine documents, such as a property deed and use permits for the Nelson Ranch, and Cedarblade's past public activism.
