If you think midterms are rough, try running for Congress at the same time.

Zane Starkewolf, a UCD alumnus and current graduate student in chemistry, is the Republican candidate for Congress in California’s 1st Congressional District.

Starkewolf, who describes himself as a “Green Republican,” has made a push for clean, renewable energy the center of his campaign. He said that while he identifies with the Green Party in many respects, his libertarian views on other issues more closely fit the Republican Party line.

He also said the need for green energy and current congressman Mike Thompson’s failure to deliver motivated him to run for office.

“Thompson is a Democrat but on ideals that would be liberal he’s not very liberal,” Starkewolf said. “I see these as constitutional. I saw that he wasn’t really representing our district.“

Even so, it may seem a bit strange to some that as a business owner and a grad student, Starkewolf would run at this time in his life. He said in defense that his decision to run actually happened 20 years ago.

“I decided to run when I was seven,” he said. “I guess I’m keeping a promise to a 7-year-old boy. I said I would run when I was 27, so I thought, well I have to do it.“

As a chemistry TA at UC Davis, Starkewolf made an impression on many of his students, including student Matthew Girardi.

“He’s someone who’s very professional but easy to get along with at the same time,” said Girardi, now a senior chemical engineering major. “He wants to fit in and help you out but he never crosses that line.“

Starkewolf said that when he put his name in for nomination, he did not really expect to win. He did not campaign very much outside of some newspaper interviews. Also, he said winning the primary was an awakening to the time commitment he had gotten himself into.

Since his nomination, Starkewolf said he has taken a side role in his Davis-based business, Mesolytics. The company uses UC Davis spin-off technology, especially nano wires, to diagnose disease.

Despite stepping back from the business world to focus on the campaign, Starkewolf said he still has a lot on his plate. Between teaching, research and campaigning, Starkewolf said he has had to manage his time carefully.

“It’s hard to juggle the time but I’m doing the best I can,” he said. Starkewolf jokingly added, “It just means I’m drinking a lot less than I’d like to.“

Even with the time constraints, Starkewolf said being a student puts him at an advantage. He said being surrounding by idealists helps him to see a broader picture. Also, he said being a student gives him a different perspective than other candidates.

“I think I’m looking more toward the future, long term,” he said. “Us as students, I think we can have a little more long term, broader horizon picture of things.“

In addition, being a student lends the advantage of a local workforce. Starkewolf said all of his interns are students at UC Davis and his campaign manager is also an alumnus.

Despite a lack of political experience, Starkewolf said his training in business will help him in working with budgets. Also, he said most other members of Congress do not have political training, so his business background is not unusual.

“Most of the people who run for Congress usually are not politicians,” he said. “I’m similar except that I’m younger and have no money – which is challenging.“

Girardi also expressed confidence in Starkewolf as a politician, mostly because he is not a politician.

“I think Zane’s the kind of guy who would actually do what he thinks is right, not just try to get reelected,” Girardi said. “He has the backbone to get things done.“

Starkewolf said no matter how you vote in the November election, it is important to vote, especially on local issues.

“Don’t vote based on a party,” he said. “Vote on issues, and really get into local elections. When it comes down to affecting change, this is where it’s going to happen.“

ELYSSA THOME can be reached at city@californiaaggie.com. 

The former Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Research at UC Davis has been a site of controversy for several years with regards to the potential contamination left in the soil on site.

Government officials presented a proposed final cleanup plan for the site at a public meeting Thursday.

The LEHR site is located approximately 1.5 miles south of the main UC Davis campus, and was previously used as an animal testing site for toxicity studies.

Many of the research activities at LEHR generated a variety of radiological wastes that were disposed of on site, according to a LEHR fact sheet.

“The primary research animals were beagle dogs,” said Bob Devaney, co author of the Department of Energy proposed plan for remedial LEHR cleanup at the public information meeting. “The focus of the studies were the toxicity of radio isotopes and radiation.”

The lab closed down in 1988 and the DOE moved into a process of decontaminating and cleaning out the buildings, Devaney said.

“A lot of what DOE has planned [in terms of cleanup] had to do with protection of groundwater,” he said.

The groundwater contamination was likely caused by the ways in which the toxic chemicals were disposed of on site, Devaney said.

“According to the practice at the time … the site had on site disposal [areas] for chemical and radiological type waste,” Devaney said. “It was mainly dried waste that was buried, and it was capped with low permeability soil.”

This buried waste ultimately seeped into the ground and contaminated the site, he said.

UC Davis plans to works closely with the DOE to monitor the site and do any further cleanup of contamination that is needed, said Sue Fields, environmental protection manager with the Office of Environmental Health and Safety at UC Davis.

“We will have to manage and maintain the land use restrictions [of the site] because we are the landowner,” Fields said.

UC Davis representatives involved in the cleanup have to develop their own alternatives to compliment the DOE’s proposed plan, Fields said.

“We are working on our feasibility study,” she said. “We are developing alternatives and developing costs for those [alternatives].”

The DOE’s proposed plan includes a preferred alternative, labeled Alternative 2 that would include long term groundwater monitoring, contingency remediation and land-use restrictions, according to the LEHR proposed plan document.

What this plan would do is monitor the site and only go in and do further cleanup if the DOE deems it necessary. This means that some of the pollutants buried under ground soil will be left untouched. This plan would also restrict the land use to prevent the contaminants from spreading or resurfacing.

However, some local organizations have concerns about the DOE’s preferred plan, and they voiced their opinions at the meeting. One organization whose members gave public comment at Thursday’s meeting was the Davis South Campus Superfund Oversight Committee.

“The key issue to DSCSOC addressing DSCSOC concerns is how well the proposed plan is implemented during the time that residual wastes left in the soil at the LEHR site will be a threat to public health and the environment,” said Julie Roth, executive director of DSCSOC.

The DSCSOC is concerned that the DOE’s plan, which largely focuses on site monitoring, will not be adequate to remove all potentially harmful pollutants, Roth said. While the site will be monitored, there may still be residual pollutants, as well as unrecognized pollutants left in the soil that could be a potential threat to offsite waters.

“Some of the pollutants that are proposed to be left at the site buried under surface soils will be a threat essentially forever,” Roth said.

DOE representatives at the meeting did not respond to any public comment.

The DOE is interested in public opinions with regard to their proposed plan, and public comments will be taken until Nov. 17. Comments can be e-mailed to LEHRPPcomments@lm.doe.gov.

CAITLIN COBB can be reached at city@californiaaggie.com. 

Proposition 12, also known as the Veterans‘ Bond Act of 2008, will appear on the ballot on Nov. 4. Approval of the proposition provides for a bond issue of $900 million to provide loans to California veterans to purchase farms and homes.

Since 1921, the voters have approved a total of about $8.4 billion to finance the veterans‘ farm and home purchase program, also known as Cal-Vet. As of July 2008, there was about $102 million left to support new loans.

“Throughout the history of the program, we had 26 passed bond measures,” said Debra Lehr, the deputy secretary for farm and home purchases.

One reason new money is needed is that there are more veterans, supporters say. On June 17, President Bush signed into law H.R. 6081, which eliminated some of the eligibility restrictions for the veterans‘ mortgage bond.

“In the past, bonds required veterans to serve during wartime prior to 1977 and apply for a loan within 30 years from the day they were discharged,” Lehr said. “Now the recent war veterans get the same benefits their fathers and grandfathers have received in the past.“

In addition to recognizing and honoring the veterans for their service, Prop 12 may benefit the economy by stimulating the real estate industry with no cost, Lehr said.

“The veterans repay the bonds through their mortgage payments,” she said. “Our program is very strong and self-supporting. Because credit is tight in the industry, we’re here with money available to make loans for veterans, which help support the real estate in California. This can be a benefit to the veterans and everyone to California.“

There is a common misconception that the Cal-Vet program will use the government’s money, said Jerry Jones, a representative from the California Department of Veterans Affairs.

“We basically issue the bond to the people who buy it and then they give us the money,” Jones said. “It doesn’t cost any taxpayer any money because veterans pay for it.“

Even though the economy is in bad shape, it still won’t affect the taxpayers, Jones added.

“Some people might be nervous, but they have no reason to be nervous for this bond measure. If people [don’t approve this proposition], we’ll run out of money and the veterans will not be able to get any loans [from us].“

There is no organized campaign against Prop 12, but attorney Gary Wesley authored a ballot argument opposing it.

Wesley’s argument said that there was no requirement for qualifying veterans to have actually served in combat, opening up the loans for veterans who only served at a base in Germany, for example.

Wesley also wrote that the bond measure is not free of costs to the state.

“If anyone who receives a Cal-Vet loan does not make the payments and cannot sell the property at a time of declining housing prices, state taxpayers will be liable for any shortfall,” he said.

Unlike conventional loans, the Cal-Vet program typically offers the lowest interest possible.

“The Cal-Vet program was more flexible with their loans, and they were easier to pay back,” said Robert Shorter, a veteran who served in Iraq from 1987 to 1993. “I had a very low interest rate and [their service] was fast.“

Prop 12 should be approved because it rewards the veterans for their service, Jones said.

“They gave up a lot for their service and this is a good thing for the state of California,” he said.

For more information on Prop 12 and the rest of the statewide measures on the ballot, visit voterguide.sos.ca.gov.

JANET HUNG can be reached at city@californiaaggie.com. 

Among the propositions on the November ballot, the one that deals with the environment and renewable resources is Proposition 10, the alternative fuel vehicles and renewable energy initiative.

Prop 10 is a bond measure that would provide $5 billion to fund research into alternative fuel technology. The funds would also go toward helping consumers purchase high fuel economy or alternative fuel vehicles, including natural gas vehicles.

The proposition would give grants to individual cities for renewable energy projects. It would also provide funds to universities for the purpose of training students in energy efficiency technologies.

Prop 10 would cost the state of California approximately $10 billion over 30 years. The cost, including interest and principal, would amount to payments of about $335 million per year.

Opponents of the proposition include Environment California and The National Tax Limitation Committee.

“We don’t see natural gas as a clean alternative fuel,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, spokesperson for Environment California.

Organizations such as Environment California fear that using natural gas is insufficient to help the environment in any substantial way, Chiaro said.

“California needs to be headed in the direction of shifting away from fossil fuels and towards truly clean renewable energy,” she said. “Despite the headline, [Prop 10] is not as green as it looks.”

Natural gas is a fossil fuel that may be cleaner than others, but it is still not entirely clean or environment safe, she added. Natural gas comes from the same place in the earth as oil does, so when burned, it has the similar effect as oil on the air and environment.

“When you burn natural gas it produces a lot of carbon dioxide … it is also a significant source of smog-forming pollution,” Chiaro said.

The natural gas industry has managed to package themselves as a clean alternative, when in reality they are another fossil fuel, she added.

However, supporters of Prop 10 insist that it would help California move toward a cleaner environment as well as reducing the state’s dependence on foreign oil.

“Prop 10 is a $5 billion bond measure and it is designed to help Californians reduce their dependence on foreign oil,” said Amy Thoma, spokesperson for the Yes on 10 campaign. “By moving towards fuels that are alternative, like propane and natural gas that are all produced in America … it’s money that would be invested back into our own economy.“

Supporters of the proposition also believe that this would reduce harmful gas emissions that are often put into the environment by cars with low fuel economy, Thoma added.

“[Prop 10] would also help us move towards using alternative fuels for transportation,” she said.

Despite the state’s financial crisis, supporters of the proposition believe that it is an efficient way to spend the state’s funds.

“We appreciate that the state is in a position where our budget is not stable, but we believe that you can’t afford not to [pass Prop 10],” Thoma said.

Still, opponents of Prop 10 fear that it only benefits the special interests of the propositions financers.

“We are experiencing in California an increasing abuse of the initiative process, the initiative process was designed as a safety valve for the citizens of the state,” said Lewis Uhler, president and founder of the National Tax Limitation Committee.

This proposition will financially benefit the authors of it directly, but will do little for the residents of California, Uhler added.

“[The financers of Prop 10 say they] do it in the name of cleaner air, but the bottom line is this [benefits] the self-interests of the financers of this measure,” Uhler said.

For more information on Prop 10 visit voterguide.sos.ca.gov.

CAITLIN COBB can be reached at city@californiaaggie.com.