How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
Letters
- Details
- Written by: McKay Florence
It seems appropriate to respond to Nelson Strasser’s letter to the editor in the Lake County News last Thursday (“Strasser: Mobile home park owners lose their way,” May 1, http://bit.ly/1o57ijF ) as he failed to include valuable information regarding the efforts of the owners of Fairgrounds Village to offer affordable housing to our residents.
Nelson has been a one man tour de force the past few years in Lakeport trying to pass a mobile home rent control ordinance, meeting with city officials, qualifying an initiative and even defending it himself, unsuccessfully, before a judge.
By the number of supporters that show up at Lakeport City Council meetings to support the rent control effort, no one seems to be upset except Nelson. It seems more like a personal quest than a broad-based community effort.
Is there a need for rent control in Lakeport? This is one of the most affordable communities in the state. Property owners within Lakeport have been modest with rent increases.
Nelson lives at Fairgrounds Village Mobile Home Park. Most residents pay $312 per month for space rent, the lowest rent for a senior mobile home park in town. Rents for other mobile home parks in Lakeport range from $382 to $743.
Rent control ordinances tend to be costly to administer as they often result in expensive legal battles paid by taxpayers and they create acrimonious relationships between property owners and tenants.
Recognizing the need to provide affordable housing and peace of mind for our residents we are offering a long-term lease effectively locking existing residents in at below market rents as long as they live at Fairgrounds Village.
Annual increases are tied to CPI with a minimum increase of 3 percent (10-year average is 2.5 percent) and in no event to exceed 8 percent protecting residents from runaway inflation.
The business terms of the lease are substantially similar to a lease negotiated and approved several years ago by Lake County mobile home residents, park owners and elected officials.
The lease terms proposed were warmly received in a preliminary meeting with a group of Fairgrounds Village residents, Nelson excepted.
Nelson failed to mention that the property owners have invested $75,000 since purchasing the property including a new park and remodeled clubhouse and have yet to take any profits.
Nelson also failed to mention that we offer an affordable housing rent credit to widows who struggle financially so they can remain in their home? Are these lies by omission?
We are hopeful that our residents will accept the lease offered and everyone can go back to doing what they came to Lakeport for in the first place … to enjoy this wonderful community.
McKay Florence is owner of Fairgrounds Village Mobile Home Park in Lakeport, Calif.
- Details
- Written by: Dave Gebhard
I left my Kindle in a shopping cart in Grocery Outlet in Lakeport.
The case was marked with my name and phone number.
The store surveillance tape showed the young man taking my Kindle out of the case and discarding it, then hiding the Kindle under his groceries.
If I get it back, I will not press charges, thanks.
Dave Gebhard lives in Lakeport, Calif.
- Details
- Written by: Jeannie Markham
So in the front page article in the Record-Bee dated Saturday, May 3, Frank Rivero and his campaign manager Wanda Harris state that some unknown person is stealing their campaign signs. Not too unusual, it happens.
But then they state that that unknown person is improving their signs by putting on new stakes and then replacing them in illegal locations.
Really?
Jeannie Markham lives in Lakeport, Calif.
- Details
- Written by: Christopher Vincent
On April 22, the United States Supreme Court reversed a ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that a Michigan state constitutional law banning the use of race-based preference in public universities violated the Equal Protection Clause. Basically, this 6-2 decision allows and somewhat encourages laws banning affirmative action.
Eight states, including California, currently ban the inclusion of race and/or ethnicity in public university admissions considerations.
Conversely, the California State Assembly is currently examining a state Constitutional amendment removing the ban on affirmative action that voters put in place in 1996 with Proposition 209. The initiative has already passed through the state Senate.
I am a junior at Clear Lake High School in Lakeport and the college admissions process for me is about arrive.
I have strived to make my school grades, extra curriculars, and everything else look as good as possible in the eyes of admissions officers in the hopes of achieving the American dream of higher education.
Should those who do not make nearly the same effort still gain similar consideration just because they are of a traditionally under-represented ethnic background?
Maybe this is rarely the case. Maybe this happens all the time. It is hard for one who lies outside the college admissions process to judge this, considering higher education admissions are both holistic and somewhat secretive.
Yes, it is conclusive that socioeconomically disadvantaged or minority students are often not very strong candidates for selective colleges because of their cultural background, home environment, or societal pressure. But should this be accounted for fully in the university admissions process?
No, this is a problem deeply rooted in American society and should be attacked much earlier. Programs need to be implemented to ensure all students have the best possible environment to thrive academically and socially – regardless or economic or racial background.
Maybe some statistics can further enlighten the situation.
Before the ban on affirmative action, the percentage of Hispanic freshman at UC Berkeley, the country’s arguably most selective public university, was at 23 percent in 1991. The “enrollment gap,” which is the difference between that percentage and the percentage of Hispanic college-aged Californians at 36 percent, was only 13 points. As for African-Americans, they made up 7 percent of the freshman class, which resulted in an enrollment gap of only 2 points.
In 2011, years after the ban was instated, only 11 percent and 2 percent of freshman were Hispanic and African-American, respectively. The enrollment gap had risen to 38 points and 7 points.
These are staggering numbers any way one looks at it. From one perspective, they show how disadvantaged these racial groups are in colleges and universities – and in education in general. In yet another, they show how much affirmative action had an effect in meeting certain quotas for admissions.
Perhaps, the most important conclusion from these numbers is the fact that race had a huge impact on the college admissions process – something that should not be true. Graduation rates have also risen slightly – showing those admitted these days are probably better qualified.
It is certain we should stop trying to make up for racial inequality at the university admissions level. It is grossly problematic to make up for mistakes in the past. Let’s start from primary education and close the gap there. That way, admissions rates and graduation rates will go up. Affirmative action should not be the equalizer for education in America.
Christopher Vincent is a junior at Clear Lake High School in Lakeport, Calif.