Letters 6/19/2025

• Water Tower Preservation
• PG&E’s Monopoly
• Priced Out
• Immigrants Are Doing What Anyone Would Do For Their Families
• USS Bone Spurs
• Cutting The Safety Net
• Portals To Hell
• Earth On Fire

---

WATER TOWER PRESERVATION

Editor-

In a 4–1 vote on May 20, the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors made a stunning decision: one of the last authentic water towers on Mendocino’s Main Street will come down — despite being protected three times by the very board created to preserve the town’s historic character.

This isn’t just about losing a structure. It’s about whether the Mendocino Historical Review Board (MHRB) — and the community it represents — has any real authority in shaping the future of this iconic village.

A Blow to the Town — and to Public Trust

The MHRB heard this appeal not once, not twice, but three times, and each time, they voted to preserve the water tower. That’s because the tower is not just wood and nails — it’s history. It’s story. It’s a part of the coastal silhouette that defines Mendocino.

And yet, in a move that stunned many residents, the Board of Supervisors reversed all three MHRB denials — voting instead to allow demolition.

So now we must ask: If our local historical board can be so easily ignored, what’s the point of having one at all?

Thin Justifications, Ignored Expertise

During the Board meeting, Supervisor Ted Williams — the lone vote to preserve the tower — raised a number of key concerns. He challenged the credibility of the Engineering report, which had been submitted by the property owner. That report largely relied on visual assessments and offered no structural testing, no core sampling, and no preservation alternatives.

To be fair, the engineer likely delivered exactly the scope of report he was hired to produce — no more, no less. But that doesn’t make it the right report for the task at hand, and the pro-removal side attempted to blur that distinction.

For instance, in an effort to bolster the appellant’s case, Tom Hudson claimed the engineering report was 50 pages long — a direct contradiction of Supervisor Ted Williams’ statement that it was just over two pages. In truth, the substantive analysis amounts to about three pages, with the recommendations limited to just three brief paragraphs. Notably, Hudson identified himself as married to a “real estate person who represents the owner of this property.”

Local voices — including one individual who helped move the water tower decades ago — attest to the structure’s enduring strength. Built from old-growth redwood, it is inherently sturdy and naturally resistant to decay. The truth is, a serious remediation plan has simply never been thoughtfully considered.

As for the idea that the tower’s relocation in the 1970s diminished its historic value? That argument holds no water. Relocating structures has long been a recognized strategy in historic preservation. In San Francisco and across the country, buildings have been moved precisely to protect them.

So why was this beloved structure greenlit for destruction?

Appellant attorney Momsen put it bluntly: Because people liked it too much. That was the central claim of the appellant’s attorney. Too many people appreciated it, as simple as that — and so it had to go.

As part of a generally lackadaisical stance, this is not a serious legal argument. It’s a hollow justification for undermining a deeply held community value.

CEQA Concerns: Has the County Violated State Law?

Supervisor Williams also raised another serious issue — and it’s one that may yet bring consequences: possible CEQA violations.

Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), any structure over 50 years old with potential historical significance is presumed to be a historic resource. This water tower, moved in the early 1970s and even older in origin, clearly qualifies. Yet no Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared, and no meaningful mitigation was proposed.

If a Notice of Determination (NOD) or Notice of Exemption (NOE) was not properly filed, the CEQA statute of limitations is 180 days from project approval. That clock is now ticking.

If neither notice has been filed — or if the filings are flawed — the County may be legally vulnerable. The community still has a chance to act.

Call to Action: Protect What Makes Mendocino Mendocino

Let’s not forget — the Mendocino Coast is the County’s single largest source of revenue. Tourists don’t come here for strip malls or modern development. They come for the timeless charm, the weathered water towers, the character that can’t be fabricated.

The decision to tear down one of our last authentic Main Street towers isn’t just a loss of history — it’s a threat to the identity and economy of the region.

Now is the time to speak up. Let’s preserve the very face of Mendocino, the small-town beauty that has made it a beloved destination for decades. Let’s stand together to defend the historic character that drives tourism, sustains our local businesses, and inspires generations. This is our town. Let’s fight for it.

Scott Roat

Mendocino Coast Realtor

---

PG&E’S MONOPOLY

Editor:

I used to think we needed to focus on opposing the rate hikes proposed by PG&E, yet I now believe that we need to oppose PG&E’s corporate structure. It is, pure and simple, a monopoly. A failing monopoly with strong challenges for some services from Sonoma Clean Power and Marin Clean Energy. Yet it still dominates the market and causes tremendous damage with its focus on profits ($2.4 billion in 2024) and shareholder returns above a focus on safe communities and reliable clean energy. Sonoma Clean Power and Marin Clean Energy are nonprofits.

Even people with solar panels and backup batteries are tied to PG&E’s distribution network and pay fees for various services. PG&E “buys” excess solar production and then “sells” it back to users when needed at a higher price than what they were paid in the first place.

We don’t have a say on the CEO’s compensation, which was $15.8 million in 2024. Nor do we have any say on the way money is spent on senior executive salaries, ads or lobbying.

Oppose PG&E. We need a systemwide public service company, not a monopoly.

Amy Lyman

Cotati

---

PRICED OUT

Editor:

My wife enjoys going out for dinner. To have someone else do the cooking and no dishes to clean is a treat. When we first got married, an evening out at a full-service restaurant with wine or cocktails was around $80. A tip was 10% to 15%. This was not that long ago.

Fast forward to today. That same evening out has gotten expensive. The waiter shows up and takes your order for cocktails, and the bartender brings them out. Waiter shows up and takes your dinner order. Kitchen help brings out your dinner. Waiter shows and checks to make sure everything is OK. When you are done, table help clears the table and the waiter shows up with the bill.

Now the evening out is around $150, and the waiter wants 20% or more for a tip. What did they do to earn $30-plus dollars. We do not go out as often, and restaurants complain about fewer customers. When my Social Security catches up with today’s economy, we will go out to dinner again.

Paul Benkover

Sebastopol

---

IMMIGRANTS ARE DOING WHAT ANYONE WOULD DO FOR THEIR FAMILIES

Editor,

President Donald Trump and his adviser Stephen Miller characterize immigrants as murderers, rapists and thieves. They are correct — about the first immigrants to these shores, who indeed murdered the native residents, raped enslaved women and stole land that had been occupied by others for centuries.

Now descendants of some of these original pillagers have the audacity to terrorize the latest generation of immigrants who, along with prior generations from Europe, have built this country’s infrastructure with their sweat and enriched our culture with their traditions, cuisine, art and music. Not to mention the billions of dollars they contribute to our economy.

To Trump, Miller and the rest who demonize people who risk everything to illegally cross our borders, I would ask: If your tidy neighborhood was plunged into violence, if you could no longer feed your hungry children because of society’s breakdown, and just over the border, Canadians were still living in peace and comfort, what would you do?

I’ll bet we’d find you sneaking over to Canada by any means possible.

Karin Burger

Petaluma

---

USS BONE SPURS

Editor:

Just when you think this administration can’t stoop any lower, they propose renaming the USNS Harvey Milk during Pride Month. If they go ahead with this insulting idea, I propose they rename the ship the USS Bone Spurs.

Brian Narelle

Rohnert Park

---

CUTTING THE SAFETY NET

Editor:

Proposed federal cuts to Medicaid and food programs will have devastating consequences for our community and communities across the country. While I heard one Republican declare they had cut $721 billion in “waste, fraud, and abuse” and no one would lose coverage, the Congressional Budget Office estimates 7.6 million people will lose Medicaid coverage, and 3.9 million more will lose coverage from changes to the Affordable Care Act.

When people lose coverage, their health care needs don’t disappear. But rather than getting preventive care, many will become sicker, ending up in emergency departments with uncovered care that hospitals will need to pay for. Rural hospitals and community health centers rely on Medicaid billing to keep their doors open. When rural hospitals shrink services or close their doors, that means job losses not only for their employees but for the businesses that support them.

As community members lose access to these benefits, demand for services from organizations like Ceres Community Project and Redwood Empire Food Bank will go up. Yet our budgets are also impacted by federal cuts.

The response will take all of us, coming together as donors and volunteers to ensure everyone has the care they need to be healthy.

Cathryn Couch

CEO, Ceres Community Project

Sebastopol

---

PORTALS TO HELL

Dear Editor,

Data and whatnot…

I recently encountered a modern phenomenon called the “Patient Portal.” For those rare individuals who have never encountered this juggernaut, it is an on line experience for tracking medical records and care. They are typically tricky to fill out to completion without having to do and redo, perhaps starting over completely time and again. If your blood pressure was an issue before, well, it is significantly higher now.

Then you make the mistake of asking yourself what all this extensive data collection means and how pervasive it really is, and really: What and Who does it serve. Anyone able to answer that question? Anybody? Thought not, and please don’t tell me that it’s the modern way.

12% of world electricity supply is consumed by these data behemoths. In the USA alone there are over 5,000 of them nationwide with 56% of them dependent on fossil fuel for the energy supply. Is this necessary or even wise? Yet its projected consumption is forecast to increase by 2% per year for the next decade.

So next time you are filling out some inane online form you have something else to consider.

Sincerely,

Tim McClure

Fort Bragg

---

EARTH ON FIRE

Dear Editor:

Earth is the third planet from the sun, the only known planet to harbor life, and a unique ocean world with liquid water on its surface. It is the fifth largest planet in our solar system. Earth’s atmosphere is primarily composed of nitrogen and oxygen, and it protects the planet from harmful solar radiation and other space objects. So why, you have to ask, are burns allowed?

These prescribed burns are polluting the environment! When we burn, we are introducing contaminants into the natural environment that cause harm. Pollution sources, such as prescribed burns, have widespread consequences on human and environmental health. These particulates are released into the atmosphere. These burns are a danger to the population and to the earth!

The carbon released from wildfires can add to greenhouse gas concentration. Burns release large amounts of carbon dioxide, black and brown carbon particles, and ozone precursors such as volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere. These emissions affect radiation, clouds, and climate on regional and even global scales.

The health effects of wildfire smoke, such as worsening cardiovascular and respiratory conditions, extend beyond immediate exposure, contributing to nearly 16,000 annual deaths, a number expected to rise to 30,000 by 2050. The economic impact is also significant, with projected costs reaching $240 billion annually by 2050, surpassing other climate-related damages.

While other people claim that controlled burns and a policy of allowing some wildfires to burn is the cheapest method and an ecologically appropriate policy for many forests, they don’t take into account the economic value of resources that are consumed by the fire, especially merchantable timber.

In Northern California, goat herds have been used in many communities to reduce the amount of fire fuels on the outskirts of those communities. It is estimated that 60-80,000 goats were thus employed by 2024.

Wildfire prevention policies must consider the role that humans play in burns.

Gino N. Zalunardo

Willits