Letters for October 10, 2019

More studies, please

Re “‘The deadliest wave’” (Covers story, by Chris Faraone, Oct. 3):

Thank you for an informative and well-written article about how the drug epidemic has only gotten worse with even deadlier drugs.

What I would like to see researched is why there is such a huge demand for people feeling the need to get high with tens of thousands of people overdosing and dying from it.

I personally see a strong correlation between housing and health care and education costs being outside the reach of millions of people while the top 1 percent own and control more than half the wealth of the rest of the population. This means the other 99 percent are basically scrambling over what’s left over. It’s depressing and creates anxiety and anger, so they must feel the need to escape, and it’s not like the good old days of smoking a joint in the 1960s to get a little buzz.

Cannabis today is a completely different animal, and then there’s fentanyl—a tiny bit is evidently all it takes and a little bit more kills you. I haven’t seen studies about the connection between the unfairness of modern society—inequality and the drug epidemic—but I believe it would make for a very interesting and enlightening study.

Phillip I. Elkins

Forest Ranch

About darn time

Re “Bearing the cost” (Newslines, by Ashiah Scharaga, Oct. 10):

After years of protest and pleading—and 10 months of our “liberal” council’s dithering—I’m glad to see that Chico has two portable toilets open 24 hours a day. This is an important first step in addressing a fundamental human rights issue.

Going forward: Does our council have the political will to ensure that this plan succeeds? (As we know, there are those who would have it fail.) Will the council expand and improve the program? (After all, two toilets only begin to address the need.) Will the council work to decriminalize homelessness, in general, as did the city of Austin, Texas? (Every Chico arrest log continues to be dominated by petty infractions and homeless “failure to appear” warrants.) Will the council support future initiatives not in conformance with the consolidation/segregation model—such as the Orange Street Shelter? (I’m not sure this council would have granted Orange Street a use permit.)

The test of whether this is a progressive council or a status quo council is felt no more acutely than in policy regarding just treatment of those living in our public spaces. So far, the needle has barely moved, but there is life and there is hope.

Patrick Newman

Chico

PG&E’s overkill shutdowns

I am writing this letter in complaint to the continual power outages by PG&E. I have suffered the loss of two pets, emotional distress, community and my way of life. As a result of the lawsuit currently being filed against PG&E, they are punishing us by shutting off our power under the guise that it is for our safety. This is harassment. They claim it is due to weather, mainly wind. But on the days that these blackouts have occurred, there has been no wind, not a cloud in the sky.

There are many people who rely on power for medical devices, the ability to cook, open refrigerated appliances, light and heat. What they are doing by shutting off our power every other day for as long as they deem is nothing but cruel and vengeful.

Lisa F. Wells

Magalia

Just got a phone call from PG&E saying that they may have to cut off our power again. That’s after a recent 12-hour shut-off and an 18-hour shut-off before that. During the previous two shut-offs there was zero wind in Forest Ranch, and the humidity was 40-plus percent.

Today there is a little breeze going, so I guess the hand at the switch is getting antsy. This power company is driving us crazy up here. No showers, for many no phones, no refrigeration if you don’t own a generator. No air-conditioning.

I suppose if PG&E wants to reduce its liability to zero they might cut off our power permanently. That should satisfy their investors.

Robert Woods

Forest Ranch

Waste of money

The final cost of the 2016 election was a whopping $6.5 billion and it’s sure to increase in 2020.

Our forefathers considered the average American uninformed and unable to select the right person for president. They thought it was too reckless and would give too much voting power to highly populated areas. California and New York are populated giants with virtually no say in the presidential election, while Iowa and Wisconsin, with a population of less than 4 million and 6 million, respectively, helped select a disgrace like Trump.

Our illustrious holder of the Oval Office has already accrued a more than $250 million treasure trove for his 2020 campaign, thanks to his billionaire donors who are pleased as punch with their huge tax cuts, as are his millionaire rice farmers who received subsidies to compensate them for Trump’s China tariffs.

Bottom line, either abolish the obsolete Electoral College and go to a real democratic way of voting—i.e., the one-man, one-vote popular vote system—or adopt Bernie Sanders’ campaign finance reform to get the big money out of politics. It’s getting harder by the day watching Trump and his policies play out.

Ray Estes

Redding

More voting thoughts

I believe that we—the over 200 million people in the U.S.—deserve the constitutional right to choose to vote against or for our 537 lawmakers on Election Day. Can you think of any reason you should not deserve the constitutional right to just vote against or for a politician?

Catherine Cottle

Chico

What’s in the sky?

What causes me to write is your dismissive editor’s note appended to the end of Carl Schultz’s letter of Sept. 26 referring to chemtrails. You wrote: “Many of today’s popular conspiracy theories aren’t based on science or in reality…”

I was born in 1960, and until almost the turn of the millennium, I never once witnessed these wafting, cloud-like formations spewing out of (what are presumably) passenger planes. These thick, listless formations on some days span the entire skyscape, usually on cloudless, windless days. And yet back in the day, contrails invariably used to dissipate in 30 seconds. Anyone my age will testify that this is true. Just ask; it’s good journalism, too!

Perhaps jet engine anti-pollution technology has gone backward since the 1960s? Are those of us old enough to remember normal skies (no “chemtrails”) to be called liars? Does anyone give a rolling donut? How can anyone in journalism—people who are supposed to have natural curiosity—not be interested in this? Or worse, ridicule those who wonder aloud what the hell happened?

Tom Blodget

Chico

Stirling City memories

Re “History in the pines” (Cover story, by Josh Indar, May 23, 2002):

As a small boy I lived in Stirling City right after World War II started. Horace Brakebill made an impression on me for his wisdom and kindness. Four people really influenced my life, all were teachers. The other three were in Turlock—the high school there is named after one of those teachers, John Pitman.

Years ago we took our three children to see my little school on the hill only to discover it was gone and in its place stood a new school named after “Breaky.” It warmed my heart and made me very proud.

I’m 86 now and, like most old geezers, I live in my memories—and those of Stirling City are as fresh today as they were all those years ago. Later I lived in Paradise, and in time worked in the space industry putting those first seven astronauts into space. I still have a copy of “Matches, flumes and rails,” which brings back memories of back when.

Don McQuiston

Sedona, Ariz.

Correction

In last week’s coverage of Chico’s affordable housing conference (see “Conversation starter,” by Ashiah Scharaga), the CN&R reported a dollar figure cited by City Councilman Scott Huber as what is considered affordable for renters to pay for housing expenses. The CN&R did not check Mr. Huber’s math, which was based on a full-time, minimum-wage earner paying no more than 30 percent of his/her income. However, Mr. Huber had used 2017 data. Based on the 2019 minimum wage, the correct figure is $624. We apologize for the error, which has been corrected online. —ed.