Letters (June 24, 2015)

• Actualization
• False Advertising
• Crop Destruction = War Crime
• ‘Under Color Of Law’
• They Don't Call Him 'Sage' For Nothing
• Trump-ism
• The Affordable Care Act
• Could Have Been Avoided
• Transfers
• All Roads Lead In & Out of the AVA

ACTUALIZATION

Editor,

Bruce old boy, just between us in this quiet little nook where no one can overhear us, let me remind you that an actual newspaper is expected to maintain a “corrections” box. Or column. Or page. You see the problem.

Gordon Black

Mendocino

Ed reply: Thanks for the tip, Gordy, but what is an “actual newspaper”? You mean like the Press Democrat with horoscopes, prostitution ads, advice to the lovelorn, and daily tributes to the wine industry, with corrections printed two weeks after the error, if at all? Besides, actuality seems awfully subjective anymore, and however defined I'm pretty sure we don't share it. But with your help, and don't think I'm unaware of the media wisdom you've banked from reading liner notes at our pseudo-public radio station for three decades, I too might yet glimpse The White Rabbit!

PS from The Major: The format for requests for corrections is as follows: You wrote [a], but that’s incorrect; it should be [b]. Or, You wrote [a] and [a] is correct, but you left out [b]. Or, You wrote [a] but that’s not clear so you should have written [b]. Or, You wrote [a] but what was meant was [b]. Or, You wrote [a] and I disagree because [b]. For example, You wrote “no one can overhear us,” but that’s incorrect; it would only be true if we were on KZYX.

FALSE ADVERTISING

Editor,

The Turner No Recall group has presented five main reasons to oppose our recall efforts--all of them debatable.

1. "Turner was just elected in November."

Turner actually came in third, with Peters and Cimolino each garnering more votes. In truth, Turner has served an unprecedented 14 consecutive years as Mayor. The very telling question is included in the minutes from a special closed council meeting of March 30, "Why has economic development not happened?" Obviously, Turner's policies have been unsuccessful.

Relying on revenues from chain stores and fast food outlets, plus 7% of grants obtained, often for projects opposed by the public, have not reversed this downward spiral. Chain businesses only offer minimum wage, no benefits jobs, while negatively impacting smaller, locally owned businesses. For example, Turner supported a Discount Grocery for the proposed Hare Creek Mall, a national chain that is reputed to take 86% of profits away from our city, while undermining locally owned groceries.

His focus on developing a new town on the mill site has neglected the city that exists, to its detriment.

2. "A single issue is not cause for a recall."

Turner misrepresents the recall effort, but we all know better. The fact that he lagged behind both Peters and Cimolino in last November's election, before the public knew anything about the Old Coast hotel as a homeless center, indicates otherwise. This was a vote of No Confidence by city residents who were tired of Turner's constant focus on developing mill site property the city doesn't own, at the expense of revitalizing our town, as well as his reliance on well paid, unelected staff working behind closed doors, on projects involving public funds. Public input is ignored entirely, unless it supports his 'vision.' Turner operates like a corporate CEO, not as an elected official, using his "strong moral compass" to justify questionable policies.

3. The recall "will cost Fort Bragg time and money."

The Main Street Merge project, now relegated to the back burner after strong and vocal public opposition, is typical, costing the City approximately $300,000. We have paid for uncounted tax dollars for reports that are never objective, written by loyal, well-paid staff biased to support projects like the Hare Creek Mall. More money will be spent for murals on coastal trail bathrooms than for a recall election.

4. " We need to pull together, not be divisive."

Translated, this means Turner does not want to listen to other points of view, from the public, or from council members, who were chastised in the SWOT analysis for disagreement with his,policies and projects. This analysis, by a paid business consultant, states that "a divided council is an unproductive council. If the council 'settles down' the community will settle down." Here reference is to newly elected Peters and Cimolino, who each garnered more votes in the last election than Turner, in an obvious vote of No Confidence in Turner's 'vision' and policies. Sadly, they have submitted to this autocratic version of city governance. Dissent and debate are integral part of the democratic process, but Turner prefers a council that rubber stamps his positions. We also suffer from a Planning Commission that is appointed by the council, not elected, to bolster Turner's outmoded version of urban planning.

5. "Turner is an honest and effective leader for Fort Bragg."

Obviously, this is his opinion; last November voters strongly disagreed. One example of his dishonesty is the statement on his No Recall page, regarding the Main Street Merge Project: " as mayor, Turner invited affected business owners to a round table discussion. The council subsequently cancelled the project." In fact, in the Failures sections of the SWOT analysis, he plans to try to convince the public to support this project, so it's not cancelled, just postponed.

The No Recall page also falsely states that "since elected in 2002, Dave has always listened to the people of Fort Bragg." Yet the SWOT analysis, compiled from interviews with council members, the public who dared to disagree are accused of 'thuggery', and labelled 'bitter and hateful...offensive." It goes on to whine that "Our mayor has done such wonderful things for our community and he is being treated like a jerk." And. "There are smart people running the city but the community doesn't always see that."

At the CC meeting Jan. 26 Turner stated that "he was elected to consider the facts and vote for what he thinks is best", not to be swayed by public opinion. The $240/hour San Francisco lawyer that 'knocked his socks off' stated that " no public hearing was required"to discuss the use of a $1.2 Million CDB Grant for,purchase of the old Coast Hotel for homeless services.

I urge the public to take the time to read over the SWOT analysis--after all, you paid for it.

Alice Chouteau

Fort Bragg

ED NOTE: Many of the people whose names are on the ad in support of the mayor are not residents of Fort Bragg. If the recall petition qualifies, it will be a close election.

CROP DESTRUCTION = WAR CRIME

Dear Editor:

A few days ago Israeli military tractors totally destroyed thousands of 5-10 year old olive and almond trees located in the Wadi Fukin area of the occupied West Bank planted by local farmers who have lived in the area for generations. The trees were destroyed on the claim that they were illegally planted on state lands. “State lands” is the term used by the Israel government for expropriation of land in the occupied territories of the West Bank. The State of Palestine government says the destruction of property on occupied land is illegal and is a war crime.

I should comment if it is a violation of the Geneva Convention then the state of Palestine would have recourse to the International Criminal Court. This particular action is just a continuation of land expropriation in the occupied territories of the West Bank to build settlements for Jewish settlers. It is part of the apartheid state that discriminates against those who are not of the Jewish faith. Due to demographics as happened in South Africa apartheid cannot be maintained over the long run. In peace and love,

Jim Updegraff

Sacramento

‘UNDER COLOR OF LAW’

Editor,

It is a federal crime for anyone acting “under color of law” willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means that the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.

The FBI investigates color of law violations.

The posting of “Collecting Prohibited” signs at the glass beaches is an attempt to deceive people in order to deny them their rights and to defraud them of the money and time they spent coming here. These are criminal actions.

The planned actions at Noyo beach on the 4th of July are also illegal. There is no law against possessing alcohol or fireworks. To stop, search, and then seize these items when people are literally “leaving town” to legally enjoy them “at sea” below the mean high water mark is also a color of law violation.

City government and its employees have no right to exercise authority, either directly or through deceit, beyond the borders of the city and it is criminal to do so under the color of law.

It is extremely disturbing to see the city council members, City Manager and Community Development Coordinator conspiring gleefully during city council meetings to engage in these criminal acts.

“Knowing better” and “good intentions” do not justify these actions. City government must obey and RESPECT the law, even more than the average citizen. If the above actions are carried out, I urge all those concerned with the loss of their rights to file a complaint with the FBI.

Captain Cass Forrington

Fort Bragg

THEY DON'T CALL HIM 'SAGE' FOR NOTHING

To the Editor:

Nice work, if you can get it!

I just read in the UDJ that Ukiah’s newly hired City Manager has negotiated an open-ended contract, with total benefits starting at $251,699 per year. Wow! That’s nearly six times the estimated median household income in Ukiah for 2012 of $42,539. At no less than 10% more than the highest paid department head, is it any wonder that the city can’t afford to fill the potholes in it’s streets?

Lawrence Ames

Ukiah

TRUMP-ISM 

Editor,

Donald Trumps's risible campaign for president of the United States won't be entirely pointless if we use it to illustrate the essential flaw in our political system. Trump has money but no ideas of substance or value. So he gets a place on the national stage. Many Americans have ideas of substance and value but no money. Their contributions go unheard. As the saying goes, What's wrong with this picture?

Riley VanDyke

San Francisco

THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

Editor,

Many people were persuaded that the ACA was a vehicle for delivering universal health care, similar to what citizens had in other industrialized nations. It was not. Instead, the ACA was a canny restructuring of the American health-care marketplace, one that delivered millions of new customers to insurance companies, created new payment mechanisms for hospitals, steered more business to pharmaceutical companies, and dictated expensive, high-tech solutions for a wide range of problems.

Trudy Lieberman

San Francisco

COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED

Editor,

Mendocino County was put on notice 40 years ago by the California Attorney General to consider alternatives to the County's lethal wildlife management program, yet in all these intervening years the County has done nothing to comply with this order. One year ago a coalition of wildlife protection organizations including Project Coyote, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Animal Legal Defense Fund informed the County Board of Supervisors (BOS) of their intention to sue the County for non-compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which requires that the County complete an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that must include consideration of nonlethal wildlife management alternatives. Upon threat of this lawsuit, the County agreed to temporarily suspend its lethal program and to hear a presentation by the plaintiffs on nonlethal alternatives in exchange for dropping their lawsuit.

After this presentation to the Board took place on May 5, 2015, the County made no further attempt to engage with the plaintiffs over nonlethal methods, and at their June 16, 2015 meeting the Board decided unanimously to continue with its lethal program, claiming a CEQA exemption based on a negative declaration of environmental impacts. From this sequence of events, it appears clear that the County only agreed to hear the plaintiffs' presentation as a means of insulating its claim of a CEQA exemption and that they never had any real intention of considering nonlethal alternatives. In other words, the County bargained with the plaintiffs in less than good faith.

Rather than engage the plaintiffs in meaningful discussion of nonlethal alternatives, the County, at great expense to the taxpayers, hired an outside law firm to defend its claim of a CEQA exemption. Despite this outside counsel's demonstration of a complete lack of knowledge about how ecosystems function, the County BOS accepted their absurd legal contention that killing hundreds of wild animals a year has no environmental impacts.

The plaintiffs offered on many occasions to work with the County to develop a nonlethal program, but were spurned at every turn. If the County had only acted within reason and within the law, this whole protracted and expensive legal battle could have been averted and the people of Mendocino County would have been better served by a humane wildlife management program that benefits everyone. But because of the Board's bullheadedness, we are all paying a dear price, especially the wild animals that are now being mercilessly slaughtered.

Sincerely,

Jon Spitz

Laytonville

Supervisor McCowen responds: "No one on the Board of Supervisors wants to see the unneccesary killing of any wildlife. Critics falsely claim the Integrated Wildlife Damage Management (IWDM) program sanctions indiscriminate killing and attempts to wipe out predator species. If this were true the number of animals killed per year in Mendocino County would be several times higher than it is. The IWDM program is designed to protect livestock but also protects natural resources, including sensitive habitat and threatened and endangered species. Ending the program would not protect predators but would result in ranchers and homeowners coming up with their own methods of dealing with marauding bears, rabid skunks and other human/wildlife conflicts. But instead of trained professionals removing specific problem animals in the most appropriate way, the odds of homeowners and ranchers randomly killing and maiming non-targeted wildlife would increase. You might be surprised to learn that taking of almost any mammal as part of the IWDM program, including feral pigs, requires approval of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife on a case by case basis. This is the opposite of indiscriminate killing. Anyone who wants to learn more about the facts of how the program operates should review the presentation given by the Ag Commissioner on June 16 (item 5f) and the extensive staff report (item 5g) for program renewal. The Board of Supervisors made it clear that we are strongly in favor of more and better education about how the program works and also about non-lethal alternatives that can be used. But we are equally clear, based on the facts, that exclusive reliance on non-lethal alternatives are not a complete answer in Mendocino County which differs significantly from Marin in terms of terrain and predator population. The County never agreed to suspend the program but did agree to hear a presentation on non-lethal alternatives and to comply with CEQA before re-newing the program. The County is relying on exemptions provided for in CEQA, not a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. As implemented, the program has a minimal impact on wildlife species in the county and therefore no significant effect on the environment. That said, the law around CEQA is incredibly complex and for this reason the County did hire outside legal counsel — and so did the plaintiffs who brought the original lawsuit. If the law is so clear why did the Animal Legal Defense Fund and Center for Biological Diversity hire outside legal counsel? Ultimately, only a court of law can determine if a CEQA exemption, Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report is required."

TRANSFERS

Editor,

Thanks for the great coverage of County Mental Health. Tom Pinizzotto has been removed as Assistant Director of the Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA). Now he is only Director of Mental Health and Alcohol and Other Drug Programs (down from the four upper management positions he held in 2014).

Doug Gherkin, former HHSA financial guy, is now Stacy Cryer’s Assistant Director of HHSA. He’s the good soldier who does whatever he’s told to the budgets and all things financial. Interesting that the Mental Health financial guy lost his job and Doug got promoted, though both are responsible for carrying out the financial mess their superiors created.

I was happy to see Supervisor McCowen ask the CEO for two new budget schedules — one with detail about “transfers in” and “transfers out,” and the other with detail by Department of all the “reserve funds” and how much is in them. He also asked for ending balances on the budgets. How about asking for beginning balances also?

I think Adam Brumm is no longer there because he did such a good job of summarizing the Mental Health financial data that the Mental Health Advisory Board (MHAB) needs, and Ortner does not want to provide. The County MHAB Annual Report is on their website and the “Financial Committee Report” is very detailed about the secrecy surrounding County Mental Health finances.

Sonya Nesch

Comptche

ALL ROADS LEAD IN & OUT OF THE AVA

Editor,

I’ve been able to use the AVA on occasion to clear up false claims and mention of “the eight acres on the ocean at the Big River, aka “The Boo,” and also Mendocino Bay Overlook. I advocated both in the 70s as owner. Now the current owner is “highly motivated.” Lights are out! Mr. McMillan did six years and I went off to study yoga, own a “yoga retreat” (88-95) and came back to Mendo to finish what I started.

The “Jewel of the Coast” is for sale (it’s available) and all of the improvements are finished which is 75% of any situation. The price is 25% at $4 (or $3) million and a bank mortgage available it would be possible to own it for $250,000 or $300,000. Why not develop a world-class friendly Prop 215 retreat? I need to bring attention to it ASAP. Old school marketing. An ad and a phone. Can I get there using the AVA?

Name Withheld

Little River