Editor:
I wish I could say that I disagree with some of your editorial coverage if only to lend credibility to a compliment on the entire edition (August "Waterfront dreamin'").
Adorni's "gift with stipulation" implied to me the "parkifying" of the entire waterfront for the benefit of all, especially the youth. The Adorni Center, though a good-looking construction, does not seem to fit well with his gift idea. I do not see a cross section of Eureka's youth in attendance at that building.
On page 13, there is listed a bike/pedestrian path from Samoa Bridge to Elk River Slough, an idea which fits perfectly with Adorni's stipulation.
I also believe that all waterfront property should remain or become public, or at least under aesthetic control, to produce not merely a path but an esplanade.
As an aside, I am in agreement with you on the Brown Act and the Board of Supervisors. It is my impression that ... hiring of personnel is very much a public concern. There should be nothing to hide in the hiring of desirable folks.
Daniel Gurnee, Eureka
Editor:
We have been following with great interest your lawsuit vs. the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors and have only one thing to say: Keep up the good work, and it's about time someone looked closely at this elected body.
Selby J. Fermer, Sacramento
[email protected]
Editor:
As a member of the press in Humboldt County, I applaud your stance regarding the Brown Act and the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors. If people like you and your publication didn't act on these blatant, disrespectful actions against the people of Humboldt, the public would never know the truth.
Rita Molhoek, Willow Creek
[email protected]
Editor:
Taxpayers for Headwaters, the Redwood Chapter of the Sierra Club and other conservation groups are continuing to oppose the $380 million federal-state Headwaters deal. Not only does it fall short of providing the protective measures needed for Headwaters Forest, it sends a message to developers and speculators of Hurwitz's ilk: blackmail works.
Maxxam's ancient redwood groves are now largely protected by the Endangered Species Act. In a federal appraisal recently uncovered by the Washington Post, the ESA and other environmental restrictions limited the timber value of the Headwaters Grove and a surrounding buffer zone to $20 million -- $360 million less than the government agreed to pay.
Maxxam sued the federal government last year for lost revenue allegedly caused by the ESA and other environmental laws. In agreeing to pay $380 million for the $20 million property, the federal government caved in to Maxxam's extortion.
Like all property owners, Maxxam is subject to a variety of laws that aim to protect qualities important to the wider community, such as clean air and water, fish and wildlife. These values are so important to a well-regulated society that they're referred to as "public trusts," owned in common by the people and entrusted to the protection of our government.
Imagine a homeowner who threatened to disrupt his neighbors' sleep with ear-splitting music all night long unless he was paid $100 a month by the city. His argument that the boom box sits on private property and is therefore exempt from public nuisance laws would be met with incredulity.
Josh Kaufman, Taxpayers for Headwaters