Letters for December 19, 2019
Two on the cover
Re “Witness to the catastrophe” (Cover story, by CN&R staff, Dec. 12)
Thank you for the last issue in which you bared your souls to “witness” the Camp Fire. Your coverage of that tragedy has been relentless. You did not come to the scene, report, then leave. You did not return to the scene a year later to issue quick update news bites. Your staff has been there from the start. It continues to keep us informed about the painful aftermath ignited by that horrific blaze.
I live in Oroville, but have not personally gone to experience the ruins. I have not been able to bring myself to tour the destruction. We briefly housed two refugees, and their experiences, plus those from other survivors, paint images in real terms that only personal tales can tell.
So, thank you, for reporting to me, for going to ground zero, and for bearing the trauma and pain that your professional duties require. You have all gone beyond the challenge, and your writings last week were deeply touching, important and hopefully therapeutic to all.
Your reporters are the best, courageous and deserving of all positive accolades that can be forwarded to you.
As the recovery goes on, I will be looking for you to get the word out.
Danny Wilson
Oroville
We’re all hoping to cope—it’s everyone’s scope. I shunned all Camp Fire reporting because I’m no dope and this trauma makes me mope. The horrific cellphone videos, the ghastly written word, the sensationalized TV news—all of it. My sabbatical ended this morning with a noon deadline for CN&R Letters to the Editor hovering over this dope.
My burden eased yesterday when Barb Foy gifted me Trauma Stewardship [by Laura van Dernoot Lipsky] while sharing how she coped and gave hope via Books for Butte Camp Fire Survivors. Barb’s laughter-laced conversation was a soothing realization for the medium of cope I leaned on the most: talking with people. The hugs, the cries, the sighs and the all too painful goodbyes.
Thank you, Barb. Thank you, CN&R. Thanks to all who lessened the suffering by telling the stories that needed to be told, and to everyone there to simply listen.
Bill Mash
Chico
Shelter discussion
Re “Out of the cold,” (Newslines, by Ashiah Scharaga, Dec. 12):
Richard Muenzer was arrested for violating Chico Municipal Code Section 9.43.030. That is, the “days and hours” section included in our homeless criminalization laws— aka the Offenses Against Public Property ordinance.
Under the terms of this ordinance, infractions—i.e., leaving a cart unattended (“storage”) or tying a rope to a tree or, in Richard’s case, simply being in an area where he was not allowed to “remain”—may meet with arrest. That is, very minor offenses are enforced as misdemeanors.
Richard was hidden from the street, trying to stay out of the rain, when he was carted to jail. As with others arrested on that night, he was then dumped on the streets of Oroville at 2 a.m.—no pack, no sleeping bag. This is routine treatment for our homeless population.
It’s laudable that Chico has funded a warming shelter. But, shelters are a form of incarceration in proportion to the level of coercion we employ. In the context of our many homeless criminalization laws—and in conjunction with engineered deprivation (intentionally depriving people of food, clothing, restroom access)—sheltering will remain the wilted carrot, preferred to the punishing stick. Our city’s “consolidation” scheme should be scrutinized in this light.
Patrick Newman
Chico
At the Dec. 10 Chico City Council meeting, Councilman Sean Morgan, during deliberation before the council, voted to propose a revision of its warming center contract with local shelter organizations, said that if the shelters accepted the revisions, perhaps those could be accepted “in 10 minutes, without all these people lecturing us.” The “lectures” are called “public comment,” Councilman Morgan, and “these people” are your constituents, as they will be for another year before your term mercifully ends.
While you’ve made your disinterest in what we have to say more than plain, given that you spend the large majority of comment time staring at your phone, only the occasional eye roll indicating you’re listening at all, we still have a right to say it.
Maybe if you listened more, you’d need fewer lectures.
Nathaniel Perry
Chico
Notes to councilman
Re “Ensuring access” (Letters, by Scott Huber, Dec. 12):
As the former park commissioner referred to in Scott Huber’s letter last week, my disappointment with his motion to open the Upper Park Road had nothing to do with opening access, but with the council ignoring a decision of the park commission and responding instead to editorial comments and a citizen’s complaint that he couldn’t drive to his favorite fishing hole in Upper Park.
Scott implied that the Upper Park Road was closed to limit access. That’s wrong. It was closed when the road became unusable and the city failed to fund a fix. The commission has been trying to get it opened for years and all we got was less and less funding for the park.
Yes, Scott, the park commission’s mission is clear, but it is the council’s mission to assure adequate funding for the park so we can access it. And no, asking people to donate time and money because you have failed to fund the park is not a solution.
Tom Barrett
Chico
I voted to keep the park road closed past Salmon Hole because park funding for rangers and staff for maintenance is far too low to safely and adequately maintain additional area. Period. I do, however, completely agree with the goal of making the park open and accessible to all of us, especially to folks with disabilities or the elderly or anyone who faces mobility challenges.
I suggest the members of the City Council work to fully fund and maintain Bidwell Park in order to make this goal feasible. If not, implementing the reasonable and very small parking fee, which Scott Huber and other councilors rejected despite park staff and commission recommendations, might be a fair place to start.
Anna B. Moore
Chico
Editor’s note: The author is a member of the Bidwell Park and Playground Commission.
‘Merry Griftmas’
There’s a Bud Light television commercial where the king is seated on his throne and his subjects pay fealty with Bud Light gifts, the king’s favorite beverage.
In the White House, Donald Trump sits at his desk (oh, how he wishes he had a throne) and fondles the income sheets from his loyal subjects, who flock to his properties with cash: some for dinner, client receptions or lodging, and the bigger the suite the more one is noticed. Top bootlicker? Trump’s personal consigliere, U.S. Attorney General William Barr, who hosted his annual Christmas party at Trump’s Washington hotel, shoveling $30,000 into Trump’s family vault.
Federal Election Commission records show that “since January 2017, at least $5.6 million has been spent at Trump properties by at least 90 members of Congress, 250 Trump administration officials, including 24 cabinet members, as well as more that 110 foreign officials from around 60 countries who have darkened the doorways of Trump properties.”
A violation of the law? Definitely. Is this a problem for Republicans? Apparently not. President Trump continues to profit from the power of the presidency, which has always been his priority. Merry Griftmas to all, and to all a good night.
Roger S. Beadle
Chico
Fed up in Chico
If only unemployment wasn’t at a 50-year high. If only the average median income class didn’t have more money to spend. If only our Constitution didn’t say a suspect is innocent until proven guilty by a jury (in the president’s case, the Senate.) If only U.S Representatives, like Maxine Waters and many others, hadn’t been calling for impeaching the president since his inauguration. Waters chanted “impeach 45” in 2017.
If only the “impeachment inquiry” had not been held in secret, in the basement of a building, instead of out in the open and televised. If only it had been held where we could see the same witnesses and evidence on television. If only Rep. Adam Schiff had come to present his “evidence” to the committee himself. If only Schiff had been sworn to tell the truth about his committee, and then been cross-examined by the Republicans, none of this would be happening.
If only eight weeks of nonstop impeachment news had not made us cross-eyed. And fed up!
Maybe the citizens of our country wouldn’t be saying enough. Stop! Let us decide by voting on Nov. 3, 2020!
Loretta Ann Torres
Chico
Editor’s note: The initial impeachment inquiry interviews held behind closed doors were done so according to rules approved by House Republicans in 2015. Subsequent hearings, with more than a dozen Trump administration officials, were open to the public and televised.
Awareness is key
Are you aware of the current condition of our climate? The impact is already being felt throughout the world as glaciers melt, resulting in a rise of sea level. Even small increases can result in devastating results for coastal regions. Increases in sea level will also result in the destruction of certain ecosystems that animals rely on, such as fish. The consequences will become unavoidable in other noncoastal regions as temperatures rise throughout the world.
As it stands, the consequences of climate change cannot be fully avoided. While large steps can be taken to prevent further damage, it will take years for the effects to lessen. Climate change is not going to be solved any time soon, thus we have to plan for long-term solutions to the problem. Even framing it as a generational problem itself is incorrect, as it is projected to change over this century and beyond.
Actions such as recycling or using fewer plastic products will also make a difference over time. For now, the best action we can take is being aware of the resulting consequences to come. Awareness of how it will affect the world in the upcoming years will help us better prepare for the consequences and, with time, lessen them.
Damian Ramirez
Chico