By Katy Grimes

A wealthy Sacramento couple has offered to make one of the largest private donations in Sacramento history to create a natural history museum for the city. Naturally, an animal rights activist and city officials are freaking out.

Paul and Renee Snider want to donate their extensive personal collection of mounted polar bears, lions, rhinos, dik-diks, and other animals, some of which are rare, and build a nearly 180,000 square foot museum to house them. The museum would also be the new home of the California Auto Museum, which desperately needs an updated building.

But it appears the Sniders are being thwarted by the Sacramento Planning Commission, along with an animal rights activist who finds the project distasteful, despite the decades of charity work the Sniders have done for the Sacramento area.

And that’s the problem. Radical activists and the government officials who listen to them would rather kill a privately funded project than let thousands of others enjoy it.

The animal rights activist and Planning Commissioner

At a planning commission meeting last week, animal rights activists got the ear of Planning Commissioner Kim Mack, and challenged whether the city of Sacramento should approve the museum with the Sniders’ game animals in the same building as classic cars.

The Sniders have asked the city for permission to buy the land for $1.25 million, and will pay to build the new museum building.

“Some members of the commission confined their comments to discussions about the design of the new museum, while others opined on the necessity of reaching out to the community regarding the content of the new building,” the Sacramento Bee reported. “Mack addressed the issue more directly. ‘I think that bringing stuffed endangered species into the mix is dangerous to the reputation of our community,’ she said.”

Mack, a politically active Democrat, has close ties to Mayor Kevin Johnson, and helped run his first campaign for Sacramento mayor. Mack also managed a grassroots support effort in the region for the first Obama presidential campaign.

Mack has also been involved with Johnson’s Sacramentans for Accountable Government effort to put a Strong Mayor Initiative on the ballot, essentially giving Johnson more power.

When Mack was a City Council candidate, she took heat because emails in support of the Strong Mayor Initiative were sent to people on an email list that originated from an Obama campaign list. Mack came under strong criticism for providing the Obama campaign email list to the Sacramentans for Accountable Government group.

And then, after losing in the city council primary, Mack was appointed to the Sacramento Planning Commission by Johnson.

It pays to have friends in high places, regardless of credentials.

The animal rights activist behind the effort to kill the museum is Jennifer Fearing, a well-known Humane Society radical, and California senior state director for the organization.

“Destroying wild animals for the thrill of the kill, for trophies, and for bragging rights is anything but good for the world,” the letter to the planning commission from Fearing said, as reported by the Bee. “We share Renee Snider’s awe of the ‘beauty of wildlife,’ but feel that awe is best shown through shooting them through lenses, not gun barrels.”

“The two-page letter also says the city would be selling valuable riverfront property too cheap, and suggests the attractions at the museum would be unlikely to draw many visitors,” the Bee said.

“A hybrid auto/dead animal museum seems unlikely to generate enough foot traffic over time to be sustainable. We also question the rationale for the city selling this property for $1.25 million — which seems an exceptionally low price for such valuable property,” Fearing said.

Fearing and the Humane Society are behind many of the anti-gun, anti-hunting bills in the California Legislature. One of their bills, AB711, would have unnecessarily banned lead ammunition for all hunting in California, but was killed in the committee process. Fearing and her cohorts are responsible for the recent ban in California on bear hunting with dogs, hunting using trapping, and the name change of the Department of Fish and Game to the Department of Fish and “Wildlife,” which most people questioned.

The Sniders

Several years ago, Paul and Renee Snider had offered to build a smaller history museum on the campus of California State University Sacramento, but were forced to give up that idea when members of the CSUS faculty became unhinged at the idea, and heavily protested the offer.

However, and quite ironically, it was CSUS officials who had previously facilitated the permission from the government of Tanzania needed for the Sniders to hunt exotic animals in that country.

Oh what a tangled web we weave. When first we practice to deceive.

Paul and Renee Snider are well-known as Sacramento’s first couple in charitable giving. There isn’t a charity in town unfamiliar with their selfless kindness and generosity. Renee Snider has been on the Board of Directors for decades of the River Oak Center for Children, where I first met her. The Sniders have donated millions of dollars to River Oak Center, helping to provide group homes, education facilities and care facilities for children needing behavioral health and mental health services.

I’ve been to the Sniders’ home and have seen the amazing museum wing with the animals on display. I sat on a local charitable board with Mrs. Snider. They are very generous and good people, but are being maligned by people who have no idea who they are, or of the many charities to which they give their considerable money and time.

The auto museum

The California Auto Museum is worth a visit. It has fantastic collections of cars, but could use an updated, climate-controlled building. The last time I visited, I saw Gov. Jerry Brown’s old 1974 Plymouth Satellite, from his first term as Governor of California in 1975, and took the nearby picture of it. These days, Brown has plenty of Capitol police escorts to drive him around.

Despite the kindness and generosity with which the gift of the museum is intended, because some froth at the mouth at hunting and hunters, the enjoyment so many others could be killed. A history museum and a new auto museum would be wonderful for Sacramento, and could be a place of learning as well.

By John Hrabe

If you’ve started your spring cleaning, or are in desperate need of a last-minute tax deduction, there’s probably a pile of clothes in your house marked for charity. Now you’ve just got to remember to drop it off at a donation bin before April 15.

That task could soon get more difficult, thanks to a proposal by a Central Valley lawmaker, who is looking to impose new state regulations on secondhand donation bins.

For the second year in a row, state Sen. Cathleen Galgiani, D-Stockton, has introduced legislation at the behest of Goodwill Industries that would authorize local governments to adopt ordinances regulating the placement and removal of donation boxes.

The legislation is a mixed bag for property owners. For bins that have been placed without the property owner’s consent, the bill would grant the owner civil immunity for any damages in removing the unauthorized bins. However, if the property owner changes their mind and removes a bin that was previously authorized, the property owner could be slapped with a $1,000 fine if they fail to follow the bill’s notification and removal provisions.

Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen, R-Modesto, a co-author of S.B. 450, told CalWatchdog.com that the bill will better protect property owners and provide a legal method for removing unwanted bins.

“My interest is property rights,” Olsen said. “This is a reasonable measure that is about respecting the rights of property owners and businesses.”

Olsen expressed concerns that, under current law, property owners could be held civilly liable for removing unauthorized bins on their property. But some charitable organizations say that the bill’s new regulations are unnecessary. They say the bill is an effort by Goodwill Industries to shut them out of the secondhand clothing market.

Property owners

“Property owners aren’t asking for the protections in this bill,” said Jonathan Franks, a spokesman for a coalition of organizations that are fighting the new regulations. “It’s a bold-faced, anti-competitive measure fronted by a team of lobbyists and political consultants.”

Franks describes the bill as Goodwill’s “attempt to corner the clothing donation market and make more money.” In 2011, Goodwill Industries generated nearly $3 billion of its $4.4 billion in annual revenue from its secondhand clothing stores. Goodwill would benefit from collection bin regulations because it commonly uses larger tractor-trailer donation centers, the bill’s critics say. Smaller charities, on the other hand, use smaller bins, and therefore must go through the bureaucratic process for each location.

“It’s really unfortunate that Goodwill has devoted so much money to a statewide attempt to make it impossible for legitimate charities like D.A.R.E. and Planet Aid to place clothing donation boxes in California,” Franks said. “We believe Californians should have the right to choose the cause they donate to, and it’s unfortunate that Goodwill doesn’t share that position.”

John Lindsay, vice-president of development for D.A.R.E. America, expressed similar concerns last year when Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed another Galgiani-authored donation regulation bill. Lindsay said it’s not always easy to obtain permission from the property owner compared to the lessee or primary business.

“Many properties are owned by large corporations and companies,” Lindsay told us last year. “Actually obtaining the written permission of the ‘property owner’ vs. permission from the agent or lessee are two different things.”

CalWatchdog.com asked Olsen to address the concerns raised by smaller charities. She said she would be open to amendments in order to make sure that “fantastic organizations like D.A.R.E. are able to raise money.”

“I do believe the author’s intent is to be collaborative — to make sure that it’s effective for everyone,” she said.

Bad will from Goodwill

The 800-lb. pound gorilla in the secondhand clothing market, Goodwill has pushed for more government regulations of donation bins, including an annual donation registration fee. Last year, Goodwill unsuccessfully backed an Oakland ordinance that would have “imposed an annual fee of $450 per box, included a cap on the number of bins citywide (60) and per vendor (15), and would have imposed fines on organizations for boxes that aren’t maintained or are without permits.”

The organization has also come under fire for exploiting a loophole in federal wage laws that allows it to pay some disabled workers less than the federal minimum wage.

Last year, a CalWatchdog.com investigation revealed that five California-based Goodwill charities pay hundreds of employees less than the minimum wage, while providing lucrative compensation packages to top executives. In 2010, the five CEOs of Goodwill Industries of Sacramento Valley & Northern Nevada, Goodwill of Silicon Valley, Goodwill Industries of Orange County, Goodwill Industries of San Diego County and Goodwill Southern California earned a combined $1.78 million in total compensation.

The average compensation was $356,000 a year.

These same organizations paid some disabled employees less than the federal minimum wage. In Orange County, 595 Goodwill employees work an average of 20-30 hours per week for less than minimum wage.

“I have nothing but positive things to say about the mission of Goodwill, but their tactics over the last few years are despicable,” Lindsay, vice-president of development for D.A.R.E. America told CalWatchdog.com last year. “They should be ashamed that they feel the need to use their clout to squeeze out their competition in such a manipulative manner.”