Letters for February 27, 2020

Cheers to rebuilding

Re “Starting over” (Cover story, by CN&R staff, Feb. 20):

Starting over was an invigorating companion for the precious things in life: including reporters covering post-Camp Fire stories on the Ridge. Wow, Coldplay’s “The Scientist” just came over the loudspeakers at Bidwell Perk—“Nobody said it was easy. No one ever said it would be so hard. I’m going back to the start.”

Indeed, and all realized by go-getters intoxicated with their indelible Butteiful spirit.

Bill Mash

Chico

‘Contentious and divisive’

Re “Protests continue” (Newslines, by Ashiah Scharaga, Feb. 20):

There should be no place outside the City Council chambers for the big Trump banner. It read, “Keep America Great.” Great for whom? The very wealthy? Corporations? At whose expense? The poor who sleep in our streets? People who have to work two jobs and still can’t make ends meet? The troubled people of Iran? The beset peoples of China? Our allies throughout the world?

No, that banner is contentious and divisive at a time when we all need to pull together to solve our many problems. It’s time to choose our candidate. Pick Amy, Mayor Pete, Elizabeth, Bernie, any of whom will move us toward peace and common purpose.

The world can’t afford the politics of divisiveness at this critical time. Cast your vote for truth and moral leadership. Reject the purveyors of hate and discrimination. We can have our better world.

Robert Woods

Forest Ranch

Some are puzzled by my position on the sit/lie ordinance in light of my past proposals for a warming shelter, 24-hour hour toilets, a homeless jobs program committee; and my vocal support of low-barrier shelter, more humane treatment of unhoused people, and housing first.

By conditionally extending sit/lie, a few tangible results are accomplished: My motion removed all financial penalties associated with the law (formerly $100-$300 per citation), eliminating the cycle of fine/failure to pay/failure to show/warrant/arrest. It replaced fines with referrals to social services—services widely regarded as the reciprocal of housing in recovery from homelessness. And it obligates the city to assure that there is always a social worker present when our [police] Target team makes contact with those found sitting or laying in the public space. Rescinding sit/lie would not have mandated service referrals or social workers.

In terms of housing, the conditional extension also allows local business leaders to “walk the talk.” One spokesman representing downtown businesses has vociferously proclaimed that they have money for shelter projects and will now support efforts to house people as the pragmatic response to downtown homelessness. I’m cautiously optimistic.

Scott Huber

Chico

Editor’s note: The author is a member of the Chico City Council.

Frustrating for survivors

Like most Camp Fire and other fire victims, I am highly concerned, angry and frustrated with what I see happening with the $13.5 billion settlement offer from PG&E.

PG&E skates as additional claims from the Tubbs and Ghost Ship fires are added without an increase to the settlement offer. But more infuriating are the claims from FEMA, Cal-OES and other municipalities/agencies that are claiming $6.6 billion in damages from this settlement. This leaves very little for the now 80,000 claims from fire victims for whom it was intended—those who suffered, endured and try to rebuild their lives.

FEMA and Cal-OES are already being partially reimbursed from the victims’ insurance policies and are already funded by our tax dollars. And a $1 billion settlement was already awarded to municipalities/agencies that were impacted by these fires. Therefore, I am outraged that our federal and state governments would take billions away from fire victims. FEMA did not undertake any measures to recover monies from victims of any other disasters. Why this one? Frankly, FEMA’s performance wasn’t that great.

Therefore, I request that our state and federal government representatives advocate that FEMA, Cal-OES and other municipalities’ and agencies’ claims be removed from this settlement.

Paul Arnold

Chico

Warren is the best

Democrats need to wake up and recognize that only one candidate can unify our divided party, fix our broken democracy and defeat Trump. Her name is Sen. Elizabeth Warren. The notions that “nothing will change” under a Warren presidency, or that Warren is less likely to beat Trump than other candidates (like Mike Bloomberg!), are laughable. As evidenced by her evisceration of Bloomberg at the Vegas debate, Warren isn’t just the best candidate to take on and defeat Trump, she’s also the best candidate to take back our democracy from a corrupt corporate oligarchy.

Unlike Buttigieg and Biden, Warren isn’t beholden to big donors, and unlike Bernie, she’s a pragmatist with a history of making her ambitious reforms a reality.

As an academic-turned-activist, she conceived of, championed and created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to police the lending industry—and became such a thorn in the side of the big banks that corporate lobbyists ran her out of Washington.

But rather than give up the fight, she ran for office herself, beating a popular incumbent Republican, and soon became corporate America’s worst nightmare: a supremely capable, no-nonsense woman with a plan to take back our democracy.

Corey Finnegan

Chico

Sanders, the hero

In California’s presidential primary, I will vote for Bernie Sanders. I have admired Sanders ever since he was elected mayor of Burlington, Vt., in 1981. I support Sanders because of the vital causes he champions and for the noble and humane legacy he represents.

As a democratic socialist, Sanders is the modern heir of Robert LaFollette, Eugene Debs, Norman Thomas, and Michael Harrington. Largely forgotten today, these great progressive reformers rank high on my list of heroes, and no finer American patriots ever lived. Like Sanders, each devoted his tireless career to promoting the welfare of working people and protecting their rights against the arrogance of concentrated wealth and corporate power. Like Sanders, each was everything Donald Trump is not. At this critical moment in our history, Sanders—and the compassionate tradition he upholds—offers our best hope for curing the ugly cancer of Trumpism and building a better America.

Michael Magliari

Chico

Three for Hilderbrand

I support Sue Hilderbrand for Butte County District 4 supervisor because she values the work of all the residents of this beautiful county and she knows that their security is dependent on wise natural resource and development policies.

If you’ve ever listened to Sue’s public affairs radio program, “The Point Is” on KZFR, you know that she has a unique ability to respectfully seek common interest—even with those of opposing viewpoints.

Sue will create coalitions to solve our major challenges of housing, water, public safety, poverty, etc. Sue is my candidate.

Jim (Will) Williams

Chico

Why did Tod Kimmelshue send out mailers with distortions and lies about his opponent, Sue Hilderbrand? Is it because his own public policy positions don’t represent the needs of the majority of residents of Butte County?

He has been silent on critical needs, such as wages families can live on, housing people can afford whether they are renters or homeowners, and land use that supports small farmers and our natural resources. I want to hear where our county supervisors stand on issues, not lies and distortions about their opponents. I want supervisors who behave honorably and truly represent us. I believe that means voting for Sue. Vote and be counted!

Emily Williams

Chico

After carefully evaluating the qualifications of the candidates for District 4 supervisor, I am supporting Sue Hilderbrand for the following reasons.

Sue is independent and will exercise her judgment in the best interests of the residents of Butte County in general, and of District 4 in particular. She is not be beholden to entrenched financial or political interests.

Sue is smart, focused and analytical in her approach to problem-solving. She has the education, governmental experience, and communication skills that uniquely qualify her to work cooperatively to solve the complex problems of post-Camp Fire Butte County.

Sue has experience with a broad range of range of persons, cultures, environments, professions and situations in Butte County, out of state, and internationally. She values diversity and understands different perspectives and challenges. She has educated and worked with over 1,500 students at Butte College and Chico State and with others in our community’s nonprofit sector.

As a two-term member, and twice as chair, of the State Bar Agribusiness Committee and a former member and chair of the Northern California Regional Land Trust, I believe that Sue will serve all of the residents of Butte County as effectively as a prior eight-term female supervisor from Chico.

Richard Harriman

Chico

Father, son support A

For me and my family, Measure A boils down to some very simple truths. If Measure A passes, Chico’s parks and recreation get way better. If Measure A fails, Chico’s parks and recreation deteriorate. If Measure A passes, I’ll be paying $85 a year; that’s less than 25 cents a day.

A gumball costs 25 cents.

If Measure A passes, all those gumballs add up to roughly $3 million per year, 100 percent of which must be spent on local parks and recreational facilities. CARD has a list of those projects on their website.

When a gumball a day can make and help keep Chico a better place, seems like a thing we all can and should support. Let’s do the right thing this time. Yes on Measure A.

Bill Brouhard

Chico

I think parks are important. All the people of Chico should pitch in to build more outdoor areas. Also, parks are important because the children of Chico should get healthy and stay healthy. Parks are better for you than video games and TV. Parks are where you make friends, so lets make parks. I will pitch in some of my allowance, and I hope you will too.

Rio K. Brouhard

Chico

LaMalfa’s fanatical loyalty

The Republican Senate was asked if there were four honorable people who would stand for the rule of law, the Constitution, and stop an out of control president. There was one: Mitt Romney.

Over in the House of Representatives, Congressman Doug LaMalfa stood with Trump and against California citizens and farmers to stand blindly with Trump. In fanatical loyalty to a president who hates California, LaMalfa turned his back on justice and California when he aligned himself with the man of lawlessness and perdition. Blind and hypocritical loyalty is what a deranged and fanatical Trump cult follower looks like.

In the Bible, 2 Timothy 3:1 says, “But understand this: In the last days terrible times will come. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, without love of good.”

Trump and his cult fulfills this prophecy perfectly.

Pat Johnston

Red Bluff

More Trump talk

President Trump continues his assault on the American Democracy. His State of the Union address written by his goon Stephen Miller amounted to no less than another one of his campaign rallies meant for his Copenhagen-chewing, Deliverance banjo-playing acolytes.

Trump spoke directly to his congressional toadies, hardly recognizing the Democrats on the left side of the aisle. He continues his onslaught on the law. Pardoning confessed criminals, paving the way to pardon more: (i.e., Stone, Manafort, etc.), and issuing clemency to thugs like Rod Blagojevich, and 10 more.

The president’s apple-polishers have the audacity to accuse “lefties of hating the police,” while America’s self-proclaimed “top cop” continues his assault on accepted norms.

When former Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann was running for president (excuse me for laughing) back in March of 2011, she blamed then-President Obama for the “outrageous high gas prices.” Fast-forward to 2020, California’s high gas prices are blamed on Democrats by Donald’s lickspittels. GOP hypocrisy rages on.

Ray Estes

Redding

A right, not obligation

It’s our privilege, right and freedom to vote! The idea or rule of law requiring people to vote is unconstitutional—and it’s uncalled for to fine people if they don’t vote.

Come on, America. Stand up for your right. It is our right and privilege to vote; granted, sometimes it doesn’t look like it’s worth it. But it is still a right, not an obligation. Making people vote is just wrong.

Sharon Chambers

Chico