Letters for April 26, 2018

Council discussion needed

Re “Ending secrecy” (Newslines, by Ashiah Scharaga, April 19):

When I was a kid in the 1960s, Lindo Channel was one of our playgrounds. Fast-forward to 2018. Lindo Channel is strewn with illegal campsites. Chico is home to numerous homeless people. Some citizens are angry and frightened about those among us who are unhoused, sometimes addicted, sometimes mentally ill.

These people are human beings and have the same right to be here as I do. Homelessness is a complex problem with many causes, among them wars that result in veterans’ PTSD, underfunded health services, and a cruel economic system of every man for himself and unbridled corporate power.

There is no one solution, but even baby steps would help. However, our City Council won’t even take baby steps. Councilwoman Ann Schwab asked the council to direct staff to research providing public restrooms. The council refused to even consider providing this basic service.

The best solution for many unhoused people simply is to house them. Fortunately, the Chico Housing Action Team is already housing 60 people in locations around town. Further, CHAT’s planned tiny house village will transition even more folks into permanent housing. Demonizing the homeless is not going to bring back “the good old days.” But compassion and work toward finding solutions will make us a better community.

Nancy Park

Chico

On April 17, the City Council refused to entertain Councilwoman Ann Schwab’s proposal regarding allowing City Manager Mark Orme to explore a potential partnership to implement 24/7 public bathrooms. Get that: The panel refused to allow city staff to even explore the possibility. Mayor Sean Morgan expressed frustration over the damage to the bathrooms in the plaza, and the vote fell (predictably) along party lines.

I understand the damage that a handful of bad actors caused, but an entire population is suffering. We need 24/7 bathrooms in multiple locations in whatever form it takes to accomplish this immediately, including some form of portable. It’s inhumane to fail to provide basic facilities to the 1,100-plus people living on the streets.

Even those who don’t believe we should provide anything should be on board due to the potential for public health issues. The recent outbreaks of hepatitis A in Southern California should alarm all of us and move the council to take action. The costs of an outbreak will be much higher than funding this most basic level of service, not only in dollars but also in the potential for loss of life.

I urge you to contact the council and ask them to reconsider this initiative.

Angela McLaughlin

Chico

Councilwoman Ann Schwab made a reasonable motion at the last council meeting. Her request didn’t ask for restrooms, money for restrooms, locations for restrooms or design of restrooms—it only asked for a discussion about public restrooms. Immediately prior to Schwab’s request, numerous speakers commented on the problems associated with public urination and defecation.

Most would logically conclude that too much public peeing and pooping could be associated with a shortage of toilets, and they’d be right. Take Chico’s elaborate bike path network for instance: The only public toilets available along many miles of urban trails occur where paths intersect with parks or schools. A person walking or biking Chico from end to end could easily never come into contact with a single toilet, and if the need arose would be forced to improvise. Isn’t this a topic worth discussing?

Scott Huber

Chico

Public restrooms really do not need to be “unmitigated disaster[s],” as Mayor Sean Morgan described the use of Chico’s public restrooms during the last council meeting.

Geez, every major city and township has them. Are we not major enough? For public restrooms to function as they are supposed to, it takes competent management. With some imagination and vision, certainly discussing alternate plans for these civil necessities is reasonable. I am flummoxed by the four council members who shot down Councilwoman Ann Schwab’s proposal for the council to hear some new ideas on the matter.

Are we going to continue blaming and punishing every wandering person looking for relief because of some undeniable slobs, drug-sotted or otherwise?

Cathy Webster

Chico

‘Negative cherry-picking’

Re “Eye on 45” (Newslines, by Melissa Daugherty, April 19):

Given your Eye on 45 follows the radical left’s modus operandi of negative cherry-picking while ignoring the positives—lower taxes, record unemployment, less drugs, human trafficking, terrorists crossing the border, money/businesses pouring in, North Korea/China bending, Isis/M-13 decimated, stock market booming, and GNP, optimism, Trump’s approval rating trending upward, etcetera—it appears to be the latter.

Now that Russian collusion between Trump and Co. has been proven an Obama/Clinton/FBI/DOJ/CNN conspiracy to ensure the election at all costs, will you embrace justice? Or side with co-conspirators who sought to supplant our constitutional right to choose a president and undermine the 15th amendment?

I didn’t vote for Trump, but every American should give thanks he won, not only for the prosperity and security we’re enjoying, but, more importantly, for exposing the lengths power-brokers will go to usurp our rights.

Those who attempted to denigrate the Constitution they swore to uphold must be held accountable. And so, too, should editors who feign professional journalism, but ignore Walter Williams’ creed of journalistic ethics, which includes “accuracy and fairness,” and “suppression of news” as “indefensible.”

Our trust has been betrayed. Please restore it.

John J. Blenkush

Forest Ranch

Editor’s note: The investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, including potential collusion between Trump’s camp and the Kremlin, has neither been proven nor disproven.

Big difference, actually

Re “‘Everyone is a psycho’” (Letters, by Allan Clark, April 19):

In his letter in the April 19 issue of the CN&R, Allan Clark writes: “But the only difference between my .22 Ruger and an AR-15 is style.”

Well, that’s not the only difference:

A common round for the AR-15 is a .223 Remington 55 grain projectile. What makes the .223 potentially deadlier than the .22 is its velocity. When the .223 exits the barrel of a gun, it flies at more than 3,200 feet per second, and is still going 1,660 feet per second after traveling 500 yards. The .22, meanwhile, leaves the muzzle at 2,690 feet per second, and slows to 840 feet per second at 500 yards. At that long distance, the .223 will slam into its target with almost twice the speed of the .22. The .223 is carrying 335 foot-pounds of force, while the .22 carries 70 foot-pounds (from thetrace.org).

From the inception of these weapons, the common thread in discussions of their advantages was the effects of the devastating impact of these high-velocity (and heavier) rounds. Were that not the case, we might just as well have sent soldiers into battle with Allan Clark’s Ruger .22.

Dan Robles

Chico

At the forum

The League of Women Voters will be hosting a forum for District 1 congressional candidates April 30, 7 p.m., at the Harlan Adams Theatre.

On websites of Democratic candidates, there is no mention of foreign policy. This is the usual.

At the forum I hope candidates will be asked about their views on foreign policy. I expect that candidates David Peterson, a former Green Party member, and Lewis Elbinger, a current Green Party member, will have some convictions on foreign policy and have the courage to share them. Hopefully, the other candidates will do the same.

Having an opinion on using the U.S. military to resolve conflicts or, in reality, using the military to further the “national interest,” might alienate some voters, so candidates regularly ignore the issue, despite the Pentagon taking about 54 percent of discretionary spending in the national budget.

The recent, reckless congressional decision to throw more huge amounts of money at the Pentagon, already vastly overfunded and never audited, warrants and needs discussion.

Candidates are living in la-la land if they don’t acknowledge the huge U.S. debt, with about $6 trillion of the $22 trillion debt resulting from military actions since 2001, severely limiting money for domestic needs.

Lucy Cooke

Butte Valley

Editor’s note: The candidates participating in the aforementioned forum include: Republican Gregory Cheadle; Democrats Audrey Denney, Jessica Holcombe and Marty Walters; and Elbinger, of the Green Party.

Speaking of candidates

Federal farm subsidies are supposed to help agricultural producers manage the variations in agricultural production and profitability from year to year—due to variations in weather, market prices and other factors—while ensuring a stable food supply.

Despite the rhetoric of “preserving the family farm,” most of the subsidies go to the largest and most financially secure farm operations.

Despite living in Richvale, a small rural community (population 244) with a median household income of $44,366, the Dsl LaMalfa Family Partnership received rice farm subsidies totaling $5,304,514 between 1995 and 2013.

On average, the LaMalfa Partnership, in which Doug LaMalfa is the primary owner and manager, received an average of $294,695 per year for 18 years. This figure works out to 6 1/2 times Richvale’s median household income.

To increase the subsidy available under federal rules, LaMalfa subdivided his family’s 2,000-acre rice farm into parcels for six family members, thus multiplying by six parts the annual $180,000 per-person “farm welfare” limit.

As a member of the House Agricultural Committee, LaMalfa oversees farm subsidies. During his tenure, LaMalfa has been the largest congressional recipient of money from agricultural subsidies, according to a report released by the Environmental Working Group.

This needs to end.

Mark S. Gailey

Chico

The voters will elect a new California governor in November. June 5, 2018, we vote in the primary election. Candidates for governor of all political parties may have their name on the ballot. The two highest vote-receivers will go to the November election regardless of their political affiliation. Delaine Eastin is one of those candidates.

Voters have time to screen the candidates. Please do! Warning: Check their records. Don’t just use their websites as sources. I researched for negative information on Eastin and only her dislike for private schools, which siphon funding away from public schools, came up. This was not a negative to me.

Gov. Brown has announced that he is proud of his record, but during his tenure several agencies have lost proper funding. This concerns Eastin deeply. She sees the need to add more funding to K-12 and upper levels.

When she was California state superintendent of schools, funding per student was sixth in the nation. Since then, California has dropped to 41st. She supports building homes people can afford, health care for all, and more. For more platform information go to: DelaineEastin forGovernor.com, facebook.com/DelaineEastin4CA/ or delainefor governor.com/meetdelaine.

To help the people’s candidate, call 899-7911 or robink48@hotmail.com

John P. Martinez

Chico

Remembering old Chico

Turn back Chico’s clock 25 to 30 years. You’ll find a bucolic town economically balanced with Chico State. Violent crime is nonexistent. Gangs, the homeless and graffiti are unknown. The sky is blue, the water clear, the roads uncongested.

Overgrowth began with greedy developers unrestrained—even encouraged by city councils, planning commissions and staff. All buying into the demented “bigger is better” rationalism.

We saw it coming, tried to control growth and protect Chico’s fragile environment, its way of life. Our slogan was, “No Way, San Jose.” By democratic vote, the developments planned at the mouth of Bidwell Park were defeated. Our crown jewel stands protected.

We can only hope that what is left of old Chico can be protected and preserved.

Jerry Olio

Chico

Delighted by sponsorship

As an avid listener of NPR in a general sense, I have become attached to a few programs that have become my “go-to’s” over the last 20 years. One of those is “Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me.”

I make sure my radio (yes, I still use one of those) is tuned in every Saturday morning at 10. This has been a routine for a number of years. So, imagine my recent surprise, but, more importantly, my delight, to hear Sierra Nevada Brewery included as one of the supporters of the nationally produced show. Wow. Thank you, Ken Grossman, and all for bringing that sort of civic pride to Chico.

Gail Beterbide

Chico

Warning to tradespeople

Recently I had dealings with a tradesman that were extremely disappointing. My options were to argue with him (in our home’s personal space), contact his licensing board, or leave a bad review(s) on the internet.

When dealing with substandard professionals and unethical businesses, we have access to customer review sites such as Yelp and Google. Yet, there is another, less obvious, old-school way to impact unethical behavior. It was coined over 50 years ago and called Joe Girard’s Law of 250.

Joe Girard was called the “World’s Greatest Salesperson.” Joe’s basic premise was: When dealing with a current customer, patient or client, you are also dealing with the potential of an additional 250 contacts. These 250 potentials will hear about the present experience, directly, or indirectly, as it is relayed. Extreme experiences (good or bad) are commonly shared with relatives, friends and acquaintances. Word of mouth still travels a long way and has an additional, personal weight to it, unlike written reviews.

Unethical behavior may gain a short burst of lining one’s pockets, but in the long run it detracts from success and shines a light on the lack of personal character.

Nina Widlund

Chico