prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: When did Margaret Way start self-publishing her books as e-books?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 1: Margaret Way (b  Brisbane d  Cleveland, Queensland, Australia ) was an Australian writer of romance novels and women's fiction  A prolific author, Way wrote more than 120 novels since 1970, many through Mills & Boon, a romance imprint of British publisher Harlequin UK Ltd , owned by Harlequin Enterprises 

Biography
Before her marriage, she was a well-known pianist, teacher, vocal coach and accompanist  She began writing when her son, Laurence Way, was born, a friend took a pile of Mills & Boon books to her, she read all and decided that she also could write these types of novels  She began to write and promote her country with her stories set in Australia  She sold her first novels in 1970  Margaret Way lives with her family in her native Brisbane  Beginning in 2013, Margaret began to self-publish, releasing her first "e-book" mid-July 

Margaret died on the 10th of August 2022 in Cleveland, Queensland 

Bibliography

Single Novels
King Country (1970)
Blaze of Silk (1970)
The Time of the Jacaranda (1970)
Bauhinia Junction (1971)
Man from Bahl Bahla (1971)
Summer Magic (1971)
Return to Belle Amber (1971)
Ring of Jade (1972)
Copper Moon (1972)
Rainbow Bird (1972)
Man Like Daintree (1972)
Noonfire (1972)
Storm Over Mandargi (1973)
Wind River (1973)
Love Theme (1974)
McCabe's Kingdom (1974)
Sweet Sundown (1974)
Reeds of Honey (1975)
Storm Flower (1975)
Lesson in Loving (1975)
Flight into Yesterday (1976)
Red Cliffs of Malpara (1976)
Man on Half-moon (1976)
Swan's Reach (1976)
Mutiny in Paradise (1977)
One Way Ticket (1977)
Portrait of Jaime (1977)
Black Ingo (1977)
Awakening Flame (1978)
Wild Swan (1978)
Ring of Fire (1978)
Wake the Sleeping Tiger (1978)
Valley of the Moon (1979)
White Magnolia (1979)
Winds of Heaven (1979)
Blue Lotus (1979)
Butterfly and the Baron (1979)
Golden Puma (1980)
Temple of Fire (1980)
Lord of the High Valley (1980)
Flamingo Park (1980)
North of Capricorn (1981)
Season for Change (1981)
Shadow Dance (1981)
McIvor Affair (1981)
Home to Morning Star (1981)
Broken Rhapsody (1982)
The Silver Veil (1982)
Spellbound (1982)
Hunter's Moon (1982)
Girl at Cobalt Creek (1983)
No Alternative (1983)
House of Memories (1983)
Almost a Stranger (1984)
A place called Rambulara (1984)
Fallen Idol (1984)
Hunt the Sun (1985)
Eagle's Ridge (1985)
The Tiger's Cage (1986)
Innocent in Eden (1986)
Diamond Valley (1986)
Morning Glory (1988)
Devil Moon (1988)
Mowana Magic (1988)
Hungry Heart (1988)
Rise of an Eagle (1988)
One Fateful Summer (1993)
The Carradine Brand (1994)
Holding on to Alex (1997)
The Australian Heiress (1997)
Claiming His Child (1999)
The Cattleman's Bride (2000)
The Cattle Baron (2001)
The Husbands of the Outback (2001)
Secrets of the Outback (2002)
With This Ring (2003)
Innocent Mistress (2004)
Cattle Rancher, Convenient Wife (2007)
Outback Marriages (2007)
Promoted: Nanny to Wife (2007)
Cattle Rancher, Secret Son (2007)
Genni's Dilemma (2008)
Bride At Briar Ridge (2009)
Outback Heiress, Surprise Proposal (2009)
Cattle Baron, Nanny Needed (2009)

Legends of the Outback Series
Mail Order Marriage (1999)
The Bridesmaid's Wedding (2000)
The English Bride (2000)
A Wife at Kimbara (2000)

Koomera Crossing Series
Sarah's Baby (2003)
Runaway Wife (2003)
Outback Bridegroom (2003)
Outback Surrender (2003)
Home to Eden (2004)

McIvor Sisters Series
The Outback Engagement (2005)
Marriage at Murraree (2005)

Men Of The Outback Series
The Cattleman (2006)
The Cattle Baron's Bride (2006)
Her Outback Protector (2006)
The Horseman (2006)

Outback Marriages Series
Outback Man Seeks Wife (2007)
Cattle Rancher, Convenient Wife (2007)

Barons of the Outback Series Multi-Author
Wedding At Wangaree Valley (2008)
Bride At Briar's Ridge (2008)

Family Ties Multi-Author
Once Burned (1995)

Hitched! Multi-Author
A Faulkner Possession (1996)

Simply the Best Multi-Author
Georgia and the Tycoon (1997)

The Big Event Multi-Author
Beresford's Bride (1998)

Guardian Angels Multi-Author
Gabriel's Mission (1998)

Australians Series Multi-Author
7  Her Outback Man (1998)
17  Master of Maramba (2001)
19  Outback Fire (2001)
22  Mistaken Mistress (2002)
24  Outback Angel (2002)
33  The Australian Tycoon's Proposal (2004)
35  His Heiress Wife (2004)

Marrying the Boss Series Multi-Author
Boardroom Proposal (1999)

Contract Brides Series Multi-Author
Strategy for Marriage (2002)

Everlasting Love Series Multi-Author
Hidden Legacy (2008)

Diamond Brides Series Multi-Author
The Australian's Society Bride (2008)

Collections
Summer Magic / Ring of Jade / Noonfire (1981)
Wife at Kimbara / Bridesmaid's Wedding (2005)

Omnibus in Collaboration
Pretty Witch / Without Any Amazement / Storm Over Mandargi (1977) (with Lucy Gillen and Margaret Malcolm)
Dear Caliban / Heart of the Eagle / Swans' Reach (1978) (with Jane Donnelly and Elizabeth Graham)
The Bonds of Matrimony / Dragon Island / Reeds of Honey (1979) (with Elizabeth Hunter and Henrietta Reid)
The Man Outside / Castles in Spain / McCabe's Kingdom (1979) (with Jane Donnelly and Rebecca Stratton)
Winds From The Sea / Island of Darkness / Wind River (1979) (with Margaret Pargeter and Rebecca Stratton)
Moorland Magic / Tree of Idleness / Sweet Sundown (1980) (with Elizabeth Ashton and Elizabeth Hunter)
The Shifting Sands / Portrait of Jaime / Touched by Fire (1982) (with Jane Donnelly and Kay Thorpe)
Head of Chancery / Wild Heart / One-Way Ticket (1986) (with Betty Beaty and Doris Smith)
Heart of the Scorpion / The Winds of Heaven / Sweet Compulsion (1987) (with Janice Gray and Victoria Woolf)
One Brief Sweet Hour / Once More With Feeling / Blue Lotus (1990) (with Jane Arbor and Natalie Sparks)
Marry Me Cowboy (1995) (with Janet Dailey, Susan Fox and Anne McAllister)
Husbands on Horseback (1996) (with Diana Palmer)
Wedlocked (1999) (with Day Leclaire and Anne McAllister)
Mistletoe Magic (1999) (with Betty Neels and Rebecca Winters)
The Australians (2000) (with Helen Bianchin and Miranda Lee)
Weddings Down Under (2001) (with Helen Bianchin and Jessica Hart)
Outback Husbands (2002) (with Marion Lennox)
The Mother's Day Collection (2002) (with Helen Dickson and Kate Hoffmann)
Australian Nights (2003) (with Miranda Lee)
Outback Weddings (2003) (with Barbara Hannay)
Australian Playboys (2003) (with Helen Bianchin and Marion Lennox)
Australian Tycoons (2004) (with Emma Darcy and Marion Lennox)
A Mother's Day Gift (2004) (with Anne Ashley and Lucy Monroe)
White Wedding (2004) (with Judy Christenberry and Jessica Steele)
A Christmas Engagement (2004) (with Sara Craven and Jessica Matthews)
A Very Special Mother's Day (2005) (with Anne Herries)
All I Want for Christmas    (2005) (with Betty Neels and Jessica Steele)
The Mills and Boon Collection (2006) (with Caroline Anderson and Penny Jordan)
Outback Desire (2006) (with Emma Darcy and Carol Marinelli)
To Mum, with Love (2006) (with Rebecca Winters)
Australian Heroes (2007) (with Marion Lennox and Fiona McArthur)
Tall, Dark and Sexy (2008) (with Caroline Anderson and Helen Bianchin)
The Boss's Proposal (2008) (with Jessica Steele and Patricia Thayer)
Island Heat / Outback Man Seeks Wife / Prince's Forbidden Virgin / One Night Before Marriage / Their Lost-and-found Family / Single Dad's Marriage Wish (2008) (with Robyn Donald, Marion Lennox, Carol Marinelli, Sarah Mayberry and Anne Oliver)
Australian Billionaires (2009) (with Jennie Adams and Amy Andrews)
Cattle Baron : Nanny Needed / Bachelor Dad on Her Doorstep (2009) (with Michelle Douglas)

External links
Margaret Way at Harlequin Enterprises Ltd

Australian romantic fiction writers
Australian women novelists
Living people
Year of birth missing (living people)
Women romantic fiction writers



ground_truth: Margaret Way started self-publishing her books as e-books in 2013.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: What was the population of McPherson County according to the 2020 census?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 2: McPherson County (standard abbreviation: MP) is a county located in the U S  state of Kansas   As of the 2020 census, the county population was 30,223  The largest city and county seat is McPherson  The county is named for Civil War General James B  McPherson 

History

Early history

For many millennia, the Great Plains of North America was inhabited by nomadic Native Americans  From the 16th century to 18th century, the Kingdom of France claimed ownership of large parts of North America  In 1762, after the French and Indian War, France secretly ceded New France to Spain, per the Treaty of Fontainebleau  In 1802, Spain returned most of the land to France, but keeping title to about 7,500 square miles 

In 1803, most of the land for modern day Kansas was acquired by the United States from France as part of the 828,000 square mile Louisiana Purchase for 2 83 cents per acre  In 1848, after the Mexican–American War, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo with Spain brought into the United States all or part of land for ten future states, including southwest Kansas  In 1854, the Kansas Territory was organized, then in 1861 Kansas became the 34th U S  state 

19th century

From the 1820s to 1870s, the Santa Fe Trail passed through, what is now McPherson County  The trail entered the county, east of Canton, then south of Galva, then north of Inman, and west towards Lyons  In 1855, Charles O  Fuller established a ranch adjacent to the Running Turkey Creek Crossing about two miles south and one mile east of Galva  Fuller's Ranch provided accommodations for travelers on the Santa Fe Trail and was probably the first white settlement in McPherson County 

Peketon County was established in 1860, by the passage of a bill by S  N  Wood:  An act to establish Peketon County  Section 1  - That all that territory west of the sixth principal meridian and south of Township 16, in Kansas Territory, be and the same is hereby erected into a county, to be known by the name of Peketon County  On February 17, 1865, Peketon County was abolished, and McPherson County was made a part of Marion County, which extended from the west line of Chase County to the present western boundary of Kansas 

In 1868, Solomon Stephens and L  N  Holmberg were appointed Justices of the Peace—the first officers in what is now McPherson County  The next year (1869) occurred the first election for the township, now the county of McPherson  McPherson was regularly organized as a county in the spring of 1870, a mass meeting being held at Sweadal  Sweadal, the county seat thus selected, was located about one mile and a half southwest of the present site of Lindsborg  In September, however, the County Commissioners resolved to meet at the latter place, McPherson which had already been located some two years 

In April, 1873, a petition was filed for the county seat re-location  It was signed by 483 voters, and a special election was accordingly ordered for June 10  Upon that day, McPherson received 605 votes, New Gottland 325, King City 3 and Lindsborg 1; McPherson's majority over all, 276  In May the McPherson Town Company had offered, as an inducement for the location of the county seat at this point, the free use of rooms for ten years, and the donation of two squares of land on the town site  The offer was accepted the next month, the County Commissioners selecting blocks 56 and 65  Thus the county seat was established at McPherson and has remained since 

As early as 1875, city leaders of Marion held a meeting to consider a branch railroad from Florence  In 1878, Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway and parties from Marion County and McPherson County chartered the Marion and McPherson Railway Company   In 1879, a branch line was built from Florence to McPherson, in 1880 it was extended to Lyons, in 1881 it was extended to Ellinwood  The line was leased and operated by the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway  The line from Florence to Marion, was abandoned in 1968  In 1992, the line from Marion to McPherson was sold to Central Kansas Railway  In 1993, after heavy flood damage, the line from Marion to McPherson was abandoned  The original branch line connected Florence, Marion, Canada, Hillsboro, Lehigh, Canton, Galva, McPherson, Conway, Windom, Little River, Mitchell, Lyons, Chase, then connected with the original AT&SF main line at Ellinwood 

In 1887, the Chicago, Kansas and Nebraska Railway extended its main line from Herington to Pratt   This main line connected Herington, Ramona, Tampa, Durham, Waldeck, Canton, Galva, McPherson, Groveland, Inman, Medora, Hutchinson, Whiteside, Partridge, Arlington,  Langdon, Turon, Preston, Natrona, Pratt   In 1888, this main line was extended to Liberal   Later, this line was extended to Tucumcari, New Mexico and Santa Rosa, New Mexico, where it made a connection with the Southern Pacific from El Paso, Texas   The Chicago, Kansas and Nebraska Railway was absorbed by the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway  This line is also called the "Golden State Route" 

20th century
The National Old Trails Road, also known as the Ocean-to-Ocean Highway, was established in 1912, and was routed through Windom, Conway, McPherson 

Geography

According to the U S  Census Bureau, the county has a total area of , of which  is land and  (0 3%) is water 

Adjacent counties
 Saline County (north)
 Dickinson County (northeast)
 Marion County (east)
 Harvey County (southeast)
 Reno County (southwest)
 Rice County (west)
 Ellsworth County (northwest)

Major highways
  Interstate 135
  U S  Route 56
  U S  Route 81
  K-4
  K-61
  K-153

Demographics

The McPherson Micropolitan Statistical Area includes all of McPherson County 

2000 census
As of the census of 2000, there were 29,554 people, 11,205 households, and 7,966 families residing in the county   The population density was 33 people per square mile (13/km2)   There were 11,830 housing units at an average density of 13 per square mile (5/km2)   The racial makeup of the county was 96 53% White, 0 81% Black or African American, 0 34% Native American, 0 32% Asian, 0 06% Pacific Islander, 0 79% from other races, and 1 16% from two or more races   1 94% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race  37 1% were of German, 12 9% Swedish, 12 1% American, 6 7% English and 6 3% Irish ancestry according to Census 2000 

There were 11,205 households, out of which 33 00% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 62 50% were married couples living together, 6 00% had a female householder with no husband present, and 28 90% were non-families  25 50% of all households were made up of individuals, and 11 80% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older   The average household size was 2 49 and the average family size was 2 99 

In the county, the population was spread out, with 25 40% under the age of 18, 10 30% from 18 to 24, 25 20% from 25 to 44, 21 80% from 45 to 64, and 17 30% who were 65 years of age or older   The median age was 38 years  For every 100 females there were 95 90 males   For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 92 90 males 

The median income for a household in the county was $41,138, and the median income for a family was $48,243  Males had a median income of $33,530 versus $21,175 for females  The per capita income for the county was $18,921   About 4 20% of families and 6 60% of the population were below the poverty line, including 5 20% of those under age 18 and 8 10% of those age 65 or over 

Government

Presidential elections
McPherson county is often carried by Republican candidates  The last time a Democratic candidate has carried this county was in 1964 by Lyndon B  Johnson 

Laws
Following amendment to the Kansas Constitution in 1986, the county remained a prohibition, or "dry", county until 1996, when voters approved the sale of alcoholic liquor by the individual drink with a 30 percent food sales requirement 

Education

Colleges
 McPherson College in McPherson
 Bethany College in Lindsborg
 Central Christian College in McPherson

Unified school districts
 Smoky Valley USD 400
 McPherson USD 418
 Canton-Galva USD 419
 Moundridge USD 423
 Inman USD 448

School district office in neighboring county
 Goessel USD 411
 Little River-Windom USD 444

Museums
 Birger Sandzén Memorial Gallery in Lindsborg
 McCormick-Deering Days Museum in Inman
 McPherson Museum in McPherson
 Lindsborg Old Mill & Swedish Heritage Museum in Lindsborg
 Kansas Motorcycle Museum in Marquette

Communities

Cities

 Canton
 Galva
 Inman
 Lindsborg
 Marquette
 McPherson (county seat) 
 Moundridge
 Windom

Unincorporated communities
† means a Census-Designated Place (CDP) by the United States Census Bureau 
 Conway
 Elyria†
 Groveland
 Johnstown
 New Gottland
 Roxbury†

Ghost towns
 Alta Mills
 Battle Hill
 Christian
 Doles Park
 Elivon
 King City
 Sweadal

Townships
McPherson County is divided into twenty-five townships   The cities of Lindsborg and McPherson are considered governmentally independent and are excluded from the census figures for the townships   In the following table, the population center is the largest city (or cities) included in that township's population total, if it is of a significant size 

See also
 List of people from McPherson County, Kansas
 National Register of Historic Places listings in McPherson County, Kansas
 McPherson Valley Wetlands
 Maxwell Wildlife Refuge

References

Notes

Further reading

 Wheeler, Wayne Leland  "An Analysis of Social Change in a Swedish-Immigrant Community: The Case of Lindsborg, Kansas " (PhD dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia; ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 1959  5905657) 

County
 Through the Years: A Pictorial History of McPherson County; McPherson Sentinel' Heritage House Publishing Co; 1992 
 McPherson County First Courthouse Built About 1869 or 1870; Lindsborg News-Record; March 30, 1959 
 Pioneer Life and Lore of McPherson County, Kansas; Edna Nyquist; Democratic-Opinion Press; 1932 
 A History of the Church of the Brethren in Kansas (includes McPherson College history); Elmer LeRoy Craik; McPherson Daily; Republican Press; 397 pages; 1922 
 Portrait and Biographical Record of Dickinson, Saline, McPherson, and Marion Counties, Kansas; Chapman Bros; 614 pages; 1893 
 Standard Atlas of McPherson County, Kansas; Geo  A  Ogle & Co; 82 pages; 1921 
 Plat Book of McPherson County, Kansas; North West Publishing Co; 50 pages; 1903 
 Edwards' Atlas of McPherson County, Kansas; John P  Edwards; 51 pages; 1884 

Trails
 The Story of the Marking of the Santa Fe Trail by the Daughters of the American Revolution in Kansas and the State of Kansas; Almira Cordry; Crane Co; 164 pages; 1915  (Download 4MB PDF eBook)
 The National Old Trails Road To Southern California, Part 1 (LA to KC); Automobile Club Of Southern California; 64 pages; 1916  (Download 6 8MB PDF eBook)

Mennonite Settlements
 Impact of Mennonite settlement on the cultural landscape of Kansas; Brenda Martin; Kansas State University; 1985/1988  
 Mennonite settlement : the relationship between the physical and cultural environment; Susan Movle; University of Utah; 1975/1886 
 Status of Mennonite women in Kansas in their church and home relationships; Eva Harshbarger; Bluffton College; 1925/1945 

External links

County
 
 McPherson County - Directory of Public Officials
Historical
 , from Hatteberg's People'' on KAKE TV news
Maps
 McPherson County Maps: Current, Historic, KDOT
 Kansas Highway Maps: Current, Historic, KDOT
 Kansas Railroad Maps: Current, 1996, 1915, KDOT and Kansas Historical Society

 
Kansas counties
1867 establishments in Kansas
Populated places established in 1867



ground_truth: 30,223.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: What did the decision to base the water rates on usage reflect?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 3: Time to clean house in Paso Robles Home
Front Page » Time to clean house in Paso Robles
September 5, 2010 Opinion By JIM REED
I’d like to give you an update on the issue of our civil servants cramming hundreds of millions of dollars in spending down our throats after the people of Paso Robles voted down the water rate increase last November  The rate increase is being hung up in the courts by the City Attorney  What was supposed to be a quick issue to get in front of a judge, has been drug out as long as possible by the City Attorney 
Even if the courts throw out the current rate increase, I expect that our civil servants will just change a couple of words in the rate increase notice and force the same old plan on us again 
There is a real problem with the people we have hired to work for us in Paso Robles  It seems that decisions are made based on some agenda, even if it is contrary to citizens’ wishes 
City Councilmen Ed Steinbeck, Nick Gilman and Mayor Duane Picanco, on August 19th, voted unanimously to hire the same law firm employed by the City of Bell  You may have heard the recent news story about the City of Bell’s corrupt city representatives 
This law firm allowed the elected officials and City employees to pillage the General Fund for their own benefit, contrary to the rights and interests of the citizens  We are already paying several City employees $12,000 per month with equally ridiculous benefits and pensions  What does this say about our elected representatives?
I believe most residents are like me  We elect people we believe have our best interest in mind  Over the last few years I have seen that nothing is farther from the truth  The people we have elected have lost track of the fact that “the City” exists to protect and deliver services to the citizens  To them it is some all-important ideal they strive to cultivate and improve according to their agenda  They have forgotten that they are elected to represent the citizens 
We have an election coming up in November  We have the opportunity to elect some responsible, principled people to represent us  If we elect more people from within this system, we will get more of the same type of government  We need to look at where the new candidates stand  Will they lawfully represent the citizens of the city? Or, are they happy with the way things are being run?
We have stood together in the past and have made real significant changes in important matters that are going to affect our lives for years to come  There are several thousand citizens that made their voice heard on the water issue, more than enough votes to make a change in our city government 
Please come out and vote for a democratic representative governing body for Paso Robles instead of the tyrannical leadership that exists now 
Jim Reed is a longtime resident of Paso Robles 
Subjects: Opinion Paso Robles Paso Robles City Council Vote	Related:
<- Previous Next ->	Endless Summer Nights at Edna Valley, event photos Trial postponed for Paso Robles woman accused of forgery The comments below represent the opinion of the writer and do not represent the views or policies of CalCoastNews com  (moderator@calcoastnews com Comment Guidelines )
2 whatisup says:	09/13/2010 at 9:27 pm
pasoobserver – Here is something to observe and get you going in the right direction:
California Government Code Section 65584
(a) (1) For the fourth and subsequent revisions of the
housing element pursuant to Section 65588, the department shall
determine the existing and projected need for housing for each region
pursuant to this article  For purposes of subdivision (a) of Section
65583, the share of a city or county of the regional housing need
shall include that share of the housing need of persons at all income
levels within the area significantly affected by the general plan of
(2) While it is the intent of the Legislature that cities,
counties, and cities and counties should undertake all necessary
actions to encourage, promote, and facilitate the development of
housing to accommodate the entire regional housing need, it is
recognized, however, that future housing production may not equal the
regional housing need established for planning purposes 
(b) The department, in consultation with each council of
governments, shall determine each region’s existing and projected
housing need pursuant to Section 65584 01 at least two years prior to
the scheduled revision required pursuant to Section 65588  The
appropriate council of governments, or for cities and counties
without a council of governments, the department, shall adopt a final
regional housing need plan that allocates a share of the regional
housing need to each city, county, or city and county at least one
year prior to the scheduled revision for the region required by
Section 65588  The allocation plan prepared by a council of
governments shall be prepared pursuant to Sections 65584 04 and
65584 05 with the advice of the department 
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the due dates for
the determinations of the department or for the council of
governments, respectively, regarding the regional housing need may be
extended by the department by not more than 60 days if the extension
will enable access to more recent critical population or housing
data from a pending or recent release of the United States Census
Bureau or the Department of Finance  If the due date for the
determination of the department or the council of governments is
extended for this reason, the department shall extend the
corresponding housing element revision deadline pursuant to Section
65588 by not more than 60 days 
(d) The regional housing needs allocation plan shall be consistent
with all of the following objectives:
(1) Increasing the housing supply and the mix of housing types,
tenure, and affordability in all cities and counties within the
region in an equitable manner, which shall result in each
jurisdiction receiving an allocation of units for low- and very low
(2) Promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity, the
protection of environmental and agricultural resources, and the
encouragement of efficient development patterns 
(3) Promoting an improved intraregional relationship between jobs
(4) Allocating a lower proportion of housing need to an income
category when a jurisdiction already has a disproportionately high
share of households in that income category, as compared to the
countywide distribution of households in that category from the most
recent decennial United States census 
(e) For purposes of this section, “household income levels” are as
determined by the department as of the most recent decennial census
pursuant to the following code sections:
(1) Very low incomes as defined by Section 50105 of the Health and
(2) Lower incomes, as defined by Section 50079 5 of the Health and
(3) Moderate incomes, as defined by Section 50093 of the Health
and Safety Code 
(4) Above moderate incomes are those exceeding the moderate-income
level of Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code 
(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, determinations
made by the department, a council of governments, or a city or county
pursuant to this section or Section 65584 01, 65584 02, 65584 03,
65584 04, 65584 05, 65584 06, 65584 07, or 65584 08 are exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing
with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) 
pasoobserver says:	09/13/2010 at 6:52 pm
To whatisup —- First of all, I reviewed AB 602 Assembly Bill  Thanks  I am sorry to inform you but AB 602 is not the LAW as you so stated in your blog  I contacted the Deputy Chief Council’s office in Sacramento handling AB 602 to confirm your misstatement of facts  You know,in the English language, It shouldn’t be so difficult to answer some simple questions with a “YES” or “NO” answer  Yet, you are reluctant to do so, but you go on and on with a thesis along with some rhetoric  I never talked about a court suit over the “water issue”, I asked YOU, not about waiting for a court decision  Maybe, you did with some other people  Also, I was not ranting about the wineries usage of water  My response to you on your vague question about “there are people not paying their fair share for their use of water”  I related, are you talking about the wineries? I am well aware that most of the wineries are outside the city limits using the same aquifer  You took my question out of context , nice try! You are just being a popinjay and rhetorical  Also, you didn’t answer another question about “what is the unit cost of water” in Templeton? as compared to Paso Robles 
whatisup says:	09/13/2010 at 8:54 pm
I am on a well  I am sure you are capable of doing your own homework  I also am quite sure if you really contacted the Deputy Chief Counsel’s Office you have been set straight  What I gave you is a proposed small adjustment in the wide range of laws that make up the California Housing element  I assumed you could stumble onto the facts based on what I gave you  By the way, I believe you can review the Paso Robles Housing element plan on the City’s website or at the Library  The California Housing Element Laws that all cities and counties have to follow have been in place for almost 25 years  I realize you don’t actually have a clue how to look the laws up  Either educate yourself or keep making a fool of yourself, your choice  A simple Google search of California Housing Element Laws will get you going  Good Luck!
TO WHATISUP — I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT LAW YOU ARE REFERRING TO THAT SAYS “WE” THE PEOPLE HAVE TO SUBSIDIZE NEW DEVELOPMENT? AGAIN, FOR THE THIRD TIME, YOU FAILED TO ANSWER MY QUESTIONS POSED TO YOU IN MY PRIOR RESPONSES TO YOU ON SEPT 10TH &11TH  IS THERE A REASON WHY YOU DON’T WANT TO ANSWER THEM? YOU DO WHAT OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS DO SO WELL, AND THAT IS “IN ONE EAR AND OUT OF THE OTHER EAR” IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU ARE EITHER EMPLOYED BY THE CITY OR YOU HAVE OTHER DEALING WITH THE CITY, SO BE IT  IT APPEARS TO ME THAT YOU THINK THE CITY DOES EVERYTHING RIGHT  APPARENTLY, YOU PRESENT YOURSELF AS BEING VERY BIAS ON CITY DECISIONS  IT LIKE THEY CAN’T DO ANYTHING WRONG ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC  THEY KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CITIZENS OF PASO,THAT IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF ARROGANCE ALONG WITH NARCISSISM 
WHAT PEOPLE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THAT DOESN’T PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE OF WATER? ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE WINERIES USING THE SAME AQUIFER?
I BELIEVE YOU RELATED THAT YOU RESIDE IN TEMPLETON, BUT YOU OWN PROPERTY IN PASO  BY THE WAY, WHAT IS THE COST PER UNIT OF WATER USAGE IN TEMPLETON COMPARED TO PASO? OF COURSE, TEMPLETON IS IN AN UNINCORPORATED AREA (COUNTY JURISDICTION) 
WELL, I GAVE YOU SOME SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO PAY FOR THE NACIMIENTO WATER PIPELINE AND SEWER TREATMENT PLANT  ALSO, REMEMBER IT’S THE CITIZENS’ MONEY THAT IS BEING SPENT  WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL, IS LET THE CITIZENS OF PASO DECIDE WITH THEIR VOTE ON HOW TO FINANCE THIS HUGE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT EXPENDITURE  JUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE PROPOSITION 218 AND STOP CIRCUMVENTING THE LAW 
WOULD YOU OBJECT TO HAVING TO FINANCE SOME NEW BONDS ON YOUR PROPERTY TAX BILL AS A ” SPECIAL TAX” OR AN ASSESSMENT TAX” TO PAY FOR THE NACIMIENTO WATER PIPELINE AND SEWER TREATMENT PLANT? A PERCENTAGE OF PASO CITIZENS FINANCE LOCAL SCHOOL BONDS ON THEIR PROPERTY TAX BILL AND DON’T HAVE ANY KIDS GOING TO SCHOOL  HOW ABOUT THAT COMPARISON FOR YOU TO THINK ABOUT? WHAT SAY YOU?
I say less CapsLock, please 
whatisup says:	09/12/2010 at 11:41 pm
I have answered your questions  I have been quite detailed in my answers and I am sorry if you can’t deal with the detail  I guess it is your inconvenient truth  You do seem to like to deflect and go around in circles  Another example, now you are ranting about the wineries using the same aquaifier as the City  Let me be clear for you, I don’t like the amount of water the wineries are using  However, the wineries are in the County, not in the City and the City can’t do anything about it  They wineries are allowed to take the water they are taking even if it drops the City’s water levels in their wells  You need to complain to Sacramento  It sounds like you just don’t want to pay anything for the infrastructure because you really just don’t want it built 
Several of your observations of my opinions are bizarre considering I have stated several times I believe the Courts need to decide if Paso Robles has, or has not followed the rules as to funding the infrastucture  Obviously, as I have stated before, if the City loses the lawsuit the infrastructure will have to be paid out of the City’s General Fund until a new method of payment is voted on by the Citizens of Paso Robles  Pretty clear 
Your idea of charging based on a special assesment rather than the amount of water a property uses means that people who use little water, but live on a more expensive property will pay more than their share, based on their water usage  In addition, how do you deal with a rental unit where the renter is supposed to pay the water bill? Your idea is inherantly unfair, but my guess is it will favor you, so you don’t care if it is unfair and other people would pay part of your share  You also have decided that since I have alternative ideas to yours I must work for, or have business with the City of Paso Robles, another attempt to deflect from the issue  However, once again, I have never worked for the City or have ever done business with the City and don’t expect to ever do business with the City  I do own property in the City which is why I pay attention  Finally, it turns out there needs to be a fix to the housing element laws, the existance of which you are questioning  As I understand it the fix to the housing elemnt laws is because of some lawsuit  This should give you all the information you need to educate yourself on the California Housing Element laws that every city and county in California has to follow:
BILL ANALYSIS ————————————————————
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 602|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
———————————————————— THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 602
Author: Feuer (D), et al
Amended: 8/20/10 in Senate
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMM : 6-3, 6/29/10
AYES: Lowenthal, DeSaulnier, Kehoe, Pavley, Simitian, Wolk
NOES: Huff, Ashburn, Harman
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : Not relevant
SUBJECT : Statute of limitations on housing element
SOURCE : California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Housing California DIGEST : This bill states the intent of the Legislature
in enacting this bill to modify the courts opinion in Urban
Habitat Program v  City of Pleasanton (2008) 164
Cal App 4th 1561, with respect to the interpretation of
Section 65009 of the Government Code, and revises and
clarifies statute of limitations and remedies for specified
housing related challenges 
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/20/10 revise the statute of
limitations and remedies for specified housing-related
ANALYSIS : The Planning and Zoning Law requires cities
and counties to prepare and adopt a general plan, including
a housing element, to guide the future growth of a
community  Following a staggered statutory schedule,
cities and counties located within the territory of a
metropolitan planning organization (MPO) must revise their
housing elements every eight years, and cities and counties
in rural non-MPO regions must revise their housing elements
every five years  These five- and eight-year periods are
known as the housing element planning period 
Before each revision, each community is assigned its fair
share of housing for each income category through the
regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) process  A
housing element must identify and analyze existing and
projected housing needs, identify adequate sites with
appropriate zoning to meet its share of the RHNA, and
ensure that regulatory systems provide opportunities for,
and do not unduly constrain, housing development  The
reviews both draft and adopted housing elements to
determine whether or not they are in substantial compliance
with the law  The Planning and Zoning Law and the Subdivision Map Act
also includes a number of sections governing zoning and
entitlements specifically related to housing, including:
? The Housing Accountability Act, which requires a city or
county to make one or more specified findings in order to
disapprove a particular housing development 
? A provision requiring cities and counties, when adopting
an ordinance which limits the number of housing units
which may be constructed on an annual basis, to make
findings as to the public health, safety, and welfare
benefits that justify reducing the housing opportunities
of the region  ? Density bonus law, which requires cities and counties to
grant a developer a density bonus, incentives, and
concessions when the developer proposes to include
specified percentages of affordable housing within a
development  ? The Least Cost Zoning Law, which requires cities and AB 602
counties to designate and zone sufficient vacant land for
residential use with appropriate standards to meet
housing needs for all income categories and to contribute
to producing housing at the lowest possible cost 
? A requirement that, when determining whether to approve a
tentative subdivision map, a city or county shall apply
only those ordinances, policies, and standards in effect
as of the date the developer’s application is deemed
Prior to a recent court decision, it was understood that
current law allowed a party to challenge the adequacy of a
city’s or county’s housing element at any time during a
planning period, provided that the challenger brought the
action “in support of or to encourage or facilitate the
development of housing that would increase the community’s
supply of [affordable] housing ” The challenging party was
required first to serve the city or county with a notice
identifying the deficiencies in the housing element  After
60 days or the date on which the city or county took final
action in response to the notice, whichever occurred first,
the challenging party had one year to file the action in
court  This process and statute of limitations also
applied to actions brought pursuant to the housing-related
statutes listed above  In 2006 Urban Habitat Program brought suit to challenge the
City of Pleasanton’s housing policies, including the city’s
annual cap on housing permits and the city’s cap on the
aggregate number of permissible housing units, both of
which Urban Habitat claimed were insufficient to allow the
city to meet its RHNA obligation  In 2008, the First
District California Court of Appeals issued an unpublished
decision in the case of Urban Habitat Program v  City of
Pleasanton allowing the case to proceed with respect to
some causes of action, but ruling that the challenge to the
housing element itself was time-barred  The court stated:
Although the statute does not specify the time within
which [a deficiency] notice must be given, it is our
conclusion that the statute must be interpreted as
containing a time limit within which this requirement
must be met? In sum, a party bringing a challenge AB 602
governed by section 65009, subdivision (d), has 90
days from the date a legislative action is taken or
approval is given to notify the local land use
authority of any claimed deficiencies in such an
action or approval  Its claim then accrues 60 days
after it gives this notice 
In other words, instead of being able to initiate a
challenge to a deficient housing element at any time during
the planning period, housing advocates and other interested
parties may now only initiate such a challenge by
submitting a deficiency notice within 90 days of the
housing element’s adoption 
1 Removes from the current list of city or county actions
which may be challenged pursuant to Government Code 65009
notice and accrual provisions those actions related to
the Housing Accountability Act, the Subdivision Map Act,
and the application of a Density Bonus ordinance to a
particular project, all of which are project-specific
actions  The bill maintains the ability to use these
notice and accrual provisions to challenge the adequacy
of a city’s or county’s density bonus ordinance
2 Extends lengthening the time in which a deficiency notice
may be served to cover all remaining city or county
actions described in this section of law, as opposed to
just housing element challenges  In other words, the
amendments apply the longer timeframe to serve the
deficiency notice to actions relating to the Least Cost
Zoning Law, annual limits on housing permits, and the
adequacy of a density bonus ordinance, in addition to
housing element law  3 Provides that an entity challenging such an action in
support of affordable housing may serve the deficiency
notice up to five years after the city’s or county’s
action  After 60 days or the date on which the city or
county takes final action in response to the notice,
whichever occurs first, the challenging party has one
year to file an action in court, except that the lawsuit AB 602
may not be filed more than five years after the city’s or
county’s action  In other words, the entity must file
the lawsuit within one year of the expiration of the
deficiency notice or within five years of the city’s or
county’s action, whichever occurs first 
4 Provides that a housing element from a prior planning
period may not be challenged if the city or county has
adopted a revised housing element for the new planning
Government Code 65755   Current law requires a court, if it
finds any portion of a general plan, including a housing
element, out of compliance with the law, to include within
its order or judgment one or more of the following remedies
for any or all types of developments or any or all
geographic segments of the city or county until the city or
county has complied with the law:
? Suspend the authority of the city or county to
issue building permits 
grant zoning changes and/or variances 
grant subdivision map approvals 
? Mandate the approval of building permits for
residential housing that meet specified criteria 
? Mandate the approval of final subdivision maps for
housing projects that meet specified criteria 
? Mandate the approval of tentative subdivision maps
for residential housing projects that meet specified
This bill clarifies that in any action or proceeding
brought pursuant to the notice and accrual provisions of
Government Code Section 65009 described above, neither the
court remedies described above nor any injunction against
the development of a housing project shall abrogate,
impair, or otherwise interfere with the full exercise of
the rights and protections granted to an applicant for a
tentative map or a vesting tentative map under specified
provisions of the Subdivision Map Act or to a developer
under a specified provision relating to development AB 602
Under current law, HCD operates a number of grant programs
to which cities and counties may apply  In many cases, the
law requires a city or county to have an HCD-approved
housing element in order to be eligible for funding  This bill provides that if a third-party challenges the
adequacy of a housing element in court and the court finds
that the housing element substantially complies with all of
the requirements of housing element law, the element shall
be deemed to be in compliance for purposes of state housing
The statutory language interpreted by the court and at
issue in this bill was added to statute by AB 998 (Waters),
Chapter 1138, Statutes of 1983, a bill sponsored by the
League of California Cities and the California Building
Industry Association  AB 998 created a short statute of
limitations period for land use decisions generally but
provided a specific exception to protect the ability to
challenge deficient housing elements  The Senate Housing
and Land Use Committee and the Senate Third Reading
analysis of the bill stated that the bill:
Specifies that for challenges in support of low- and
moderate-income housing requirements, the petitioner
shall notice local government 60 days prior to filing
action  The [one-year] statute of limitations then
begins on the first day the legislative body fails to
In the intervening 25 years prior to the Urban Habitat
ruling, housing advocates filed and successfully settled at
least ten cases in which the 60-day deficiency notice was
sent more than 90 days after adoption of the city’s or
county’s housing element  In none of these cases was the
timeliness on the advocates’ suit contested  Likewise, six
bills amended other portions of this statute during those
intervening years, and there was never any controversy
surrounding the lack of a deadline for housing advocates to
serve a deficiency notice nor any attempt to change the AB 602
statute in this regard  Current level of housing element compliance   According to
HCD’s website as of June 7, 2010, only 46 percent of cities
and counties have adopted an HCD-approved housing element
for the current planning period that began in 2005 for the
San Diego region, 2008 for the Southern California, Fresno,
Kern, and Sacramento regions, and the summer of 2009 for
the remaining areas of the state  Unlocking the private market   The purpose of housing
element law is to create opportunities for the private
housing market to function  Builders cannot build without
access to appropriately zoned land, and current land use
plans in many cities and counties in California fail to
provide sufficient opportunities to accommodate projected
population growth  The San Diego Association of
Governments’ Regional Comprehensive Plan describes this
typical California paradox in the following way:
Under current plans and policies, more than 90 percent
of [the San Diego region’s] remaining vacant land
designated for housing is planned for densities of
less than one home per acre, and most is in the rural
back country areas dependent upon scarce groundwater
supplies  And of the remaining vacant land planned for
housing in the 18 incorporated cities, only about
seven percent is planned for multifamily housing  When
taken together, the current land use plans of the 19
local jurisdictions do not accommodate the amount of
growth anticipated in our region  SANDAG’s population
forecast, which reflects the current adopted local
land use plans in the region, projects that while
population will increase by 37 percent by 2030,
housing will grow by just 30 percent  The forecast
shows that if local plans are not changed, demand for
housing will continue to outpace the supply, just as
Housing element law addresses this problem directly by
requiring cities and counties to zone land at appropriate
densities to accommodate the projected housing needs of all
income groups and to remove constraints that prevent such
sites from being developed at the allowed densities  AB 602
Cities and counties, however, are not required to build
housing because that is the role of private developers 
The law holds cities and counties accountable only for that
which they control: zoning and land use entitlements 
Without the ability to enforce housing element law, the
market’s ability to meet housing demand may well remain
locked up 
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com : No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/23/10)
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (co-source)
Housing California (co-source)
Advocates for Affordable Homes in Fremont
California Coalition for Rural Housing
Community Housing Improvement Program
Community Housing Works
Eden Housing
Fair Housing of Marin
Grassroots Leadership Network of Marin
Kennedy Commission
Public Advocates, Inc
San Diego Housing Federation
Self-Help Enterprises
Sierra Club of California
American Planning Association, California Chapter
JA:nl 8/23/10 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
pasoobserver says:	09/11/2010 at 11:17 pm
To whatisup — Thank you for your response to my comments  However, you failed to answer some of my questions that I mentioned to you  It’s almost like dealing with some City officials  They just let the public vent at their bimonthly council meetings  In my opinion, it’s difficult to deal with narcissism and arrogance  Over the years, there has been some very good input to our elected officials on how to proceed on the Nacimiento water pipeline,but it fell on deaf ears  You wanted me to answer some of your questions,but you did not answer some of my questions  Again, are you willing to subsidize new development?,Yes?or No?, are you willing to pay for a commodity that you are not receiving? Yes?or No? and another question for you  Are you willing to pay over 300% on your water bills within the five (5) year plan that the City has proposed? Also, the water rates will be subject to later increases too  By the way, I do concur with the city’s plan of “you pay for the amount of water units you use”  (748 gal=one unit)  However, the higher water rates are not good for our senior citizens on fixed incomes and other struggling families in our community  My first suggestion years ago was desalination  The response was it was too expensive  Of course, now it is more expensive  I would suggest that our elected officials recall the existing bonds (The bonds can be recalled early)  The City council can explain to the citizens in detail with financing of new bonds at a lower interest rate as of now for the sewer plant and Nacimiento water pipeline and present their new proposal in compliance with Proposition 218  Let the citizens of Paso VOTE on the financing bonds for their approval  Most of the citizens,that I had spoken to were not happy with the way our City Council handled the Nacimiento water pipeline project  The citizens of Paso didn’t give our City Council a “BLANK CHECK” for $176 million to spend without voter approval  I would suggest that it be a “special tax” or “an assessment” be levied on our property taxes  A percentage of those bonds can be deducted on Federal Income taxes  As it is now, a” fee” on a capital funding project is not deductible  Of course, there are homeowners would not go for this suggestion due to our poor economy  My analogy mentioned above would be, you would get something back on a “special tax” or an “assessment” verses nothing on a “fee”  What say you?
whatisup says:	09/12/2010 at 9:02 am
Unfortunately the law says we have to subsidize new development in California  I don’t like it, but it is the law  I know paying using the property taxes was bandied about  The argument against it was it would mean some would be paying for water they aren’t using and others could be big water users, but pay a small special assessment on their property taxes  I think the decision that was made to base it on usage was out of fairness  It seems to me if people are using water and not paying their share of the costs it is not fair  The Senior issue is very difficult  If someone is retired for twenty years is it realistic to think prices don’t go up during the 20 years of retirement  Think what prices were in 1990 compared to today  Should Seniors never have to pay for capital improvements? Paso Robles also had very low water rates  Rates that are no longer possible given the circumstances  Desalination will happen eventually  California is out of water  If you want to pay $1,000,000 a gallon there is no more allotable water of any consequence in California  The expense will be tremendous — still have to build a desalination plant, still have to build a pipeline  I don’t know if the plant has to be built along the ocean or if the salt water could be piped over to Paso Robles  If it has to be built along the ocean, Paso Robles doesn’t own land on the ocean and, in any case, the environmentalists will keep it in courts for years as they have done so for other proposed desalination plants in Southern California  Eventually necessity will force desalination past the environmentalists, but not yet 
pasojim says:	09/13/2010 at 7:46 am
Whatisup – On one of your previous post you made the comment you haven’t heard any of the legal suggestions for the water issue, But you obviously have  That is a good thing  So we can move the discussion ahead 
Once, again this was handled incorrectly by our city custodians from the beginning  And now here we are  The public is not supporting this very expensive, very limited benefit project  As you said, until a plan is developed that the public can support, things don’t look good 
All this discussion about the water issue has only reinforced my opinion the issue hasn’t been about water, only how the plan should be paid for  Or more specifically, to what extent do we allow our elected custodians and our un-elected GOD tzar decide which laws they will follow and which laws they will ignore  When the City GOD tzar tell citizens at a council meeting if we don’t agree with the City’s plan, then we should just sue him, and when the City Attorney explains to a citizen at a City Council meeting that she does have to respond to their questions because she does NOT work for them  When the project is voted down by the citizens and the council brings it right back up, it is clear that our elected representatives are not doing their job providing direction to their employees and listening to and representing the CITIZENS 
The subject of the original post was the need to elect different representation  I think with all the conversation made on this post, as well as the post on Cal Coast about the hiring of the new legal firm you were involved in, Supports my original opinion 



ground_truth: Fairness.