Opinion

Details

Written by: Randy Ridgel

Published: 16 July 2012

Until the affirmative marijuana vote by the Board of Supervisors, we had dodged the bullet in the last election. If Moss and Brandon had joined Denise Rushing to form a majority, this gentle, charming county would have become San Francisco light, road rage and all. Voters also demonstrated by rejecting Measure D that they opposed turning the county over to backyard marijuana farming.

I wasn’t surprised by Rushing, Brown or Farrington. I expected Rushing to vote to let pot growers grow pot. I anticipated Brown, a straight shooter, would oppose piecemeal law-breaking – and he did. Farrington is a born compromiser; he would attempt to broker a time-sharing compromise between a convent and a brothel.

Following Farrington’s compromise proposal, given a choice between good and evil, the supervisors, except Brown, voted for half evil, satisfying nobody. It’s as if a virgin decided to become just a little pregnant.

We got in this mess because California ignored federal law, pot growers ignored California and federal law, and the supervisors got confused. I propose that when it comes back around, we ignore all outside laws and make some money for the county.

Since the growers declare themselves farmers, let’s pass an ordinance that limits growing a normal amount of plants to fit on a normal farm of no less than twenty acres – like tobacco farmers – instead of tiny, stinking, dangerous backyard nuisances. Medicinal marijuana is nonsense; it is recreational stuff – just like liquor and tobacco, only worse. Pain-reducing chemicals in marijuana are available in pills.

If growing the stuff is legal then let’s stop the sneaky, impossible to monitor and control, backyard stuff and grow it openly as a farmland crop. It could be a cooperative, shared by many growers.

Since each plant is worth a few thousand dollars, let’s rake off, say, a thousand dollars as a fee for the county for each plant harvested. After all, these pot growers will pound our roads and streets cultivating, harvesting and marketing their crops. Furthermore, now that we’re about to be a sanctuary county for pot growing, hordes of hairy, smelly, law-breaking folks will migrate here and fill our jail.

By taxing pot we will become a wealthy county, collecting enough money to fill potholes (pot holes?) and afford smooth roads that are the envy of California. Furthermore we will amass sufficient cash from taxing pot to forgo the proposed sales tax and build a spacious, elegant jail to hold the hairy, law-breaking hordes that pot attracts.

However, we need a sheriff who will support inspections and enforce laws regarding marijuana. An added benefit is that, as with tobacco, we can pass laws to keep it from children.

Randy Ridgel lives in Kelseyville, Calif.

Details

Written by: Clifford and Paula Strother, John and Connie Halpenny

Published: 16 July 2012

This past weekend spent at Clearlake, Calif., with some special friends turned out to be a real rescue of two baby deer fawns.

It was about 10 p.m. on a Friday night. The four of us all went to bed. After about an hour had passed, there was this commotion outside our window.

We kind of laughed it off at first as being a couple of possums, or skunks rattling through the bushes. This commotion continued to the point where we all had to investigate as to what was going on in the front yard.

The yard is raised up from the street by a retaining wall. The wall is approximately 5 feet from the ground and is guarded by a 4 foot wrought iron fence with vertical bars set every 6 inches.

Upon reaching the front yard with flashlights in hand, there was two baby fawns stuck in between the vertical bars. They were both hanging through the fence from their rear hips. Because of the height of the wall, there was nothing for the fawns to stand up.

Thoroughly helpless, with Mother Deer standing in street watching, the four of us were trying to free the fawns.

We supported their heads and front part of their bodies and tried to squeeze them through the bars. We tried to bend the bars and shovels and wooden planks to no avail.

Finally after about 15 minutes of trying everything, one of us decided to pull the one fawn back through with support from the person holding the fawn, we were successful and then we pulled the other fawn back and they both bounded out of sight.

All this time, Mother Deer was standing there watching and did not move until the fawns were released to freedom.

We were all so relieved that the two fawns will live another day. The next morning, there, in the back yard was Mother Deer and the two fawns just staring up at us on the raised deck. They just stood there for about 5 minutes and then just walked on to their home in Clearlake.

This real life experience was very special to us and we wanted to share this successful rescue with the Clearlake community.

Clifford and Paula Strother are owners of a home in Clearlake, Calif. Their permanent home is in Santa Rosa, Calif. John and Connie Halpenny reside in Elk Grove, Calif. The Halpennys were visiting the Strother vacation home at the time of the fawn rescue.

Details

Written by: Betsy Cawn

Published: 15 July 2012

The Lake County Board of Supervisors is proposing to ask for a new sales tax to fund lakebed management services like weed and algae abatement and quagga mussel prevention. There will be a separate Board of Supervisors hearing on the sales tax proposal on Wednesday, July 18, at 8 a.m.  

There is no question that these services – like fire and police protection – are needed. And, because our tourism revenues have been hard hit in recent years, there is no question that new funding sources must be found.

Simultaneously, however, the Board of Supervisors will be considering a request to exempt from public oversight the organization that provides lakebed management – the Lake County Watershed Protection District.

Public oversight of special service districts (other than schools) is the job of a little known but very powerful body called the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).

Comprised of elected officials from the county, the cities, and independent special districts, it is LAFCO’s responsibility to provide guidance for efficient delivery of special district services.

LAFCO uses a process called a “municipal service review” to periodically assess the needs of special districts (and cities) to make sure they have the ability to provide services.  A LAFCO review of the Watershed Protection District would, most likely, clarify the need for new funding to take care of our lakes.

However, the Watershed Protection District – run by the Board of Supervisors as District Board of Directors – apparently views the public oversight process as unnecessarily burdensome, and LAFCO has offered to let the district off the hook.

Rather than relinquish responsibility for public review of Watershed Protection District practices, LAFCO members should redouble their efforts – in these tough economic times – to ensure that district services are effective and manageable.

Ask your county supervisor to protect our public funding investments by voting no on exempting the Watershed Protection District from LAFCO oversight, on Tuesday, July 17.

Betsy Cawn lives in Upper Lake, Calif.