Letters to the Editor Oct. 10, 2009

Options exist to keep cypresses at courthouse

With regards to the cypress trees coming down article in the October 7 issue of The Triplicate, it appears that once again there is another “outside agency” telling the people of Del Norte County what to do.

The opinion of the second arborist seems to be a reflection of the first opinion, that being “cut them down.” Removal of the trees is the path of least resistance and it eliminates any liability on the person that would recommend to keep the trees.

Removing the trees and replanting with a species like sycamore trees, a species that is not native to this area, would indicate to me that the city needs a third opinion. Not from an arborist but the citizens of Del Norte County. After all, we are the ones who will have to live without the trees once they are gone. Yes, consider removal, not of the trees but sidewalks, parking lot and even H Street itself if necessary.

H Street is only really needed for the parade on the Fourth of July. Keep in mind that once the trees are gone and another species planted in their place the problem will once again come to the surface in 50 or so years when those trees become too large for the site.

There are always options when it comes to working with trees, and I say keep them.   

Jim Erler

Crescent City

Health reform goes beyond constitutional powers

In the Oct. 1 editorial page of The Daily Triplicate, readers were treated to a Coastal Voices piece (“Doctors on health care reform”) by Emily Dalton, MD, who purported to speak for doctors on HR3200, the 2009 Health Care Act.

If people were to be wooed by her song they would believe that she speaks for the entire Humboldt-Del Norte Medical Society, which she decidedly does not. I note that many members were not listed.

Dr. Dalton proceeded to zing off the correct interpretation of the immense, mind-boggling bill that has been so hotly debated. I would ask Dr. Dalton what her source for the “correct” information is. That source is what the legislators themselves greatly need for this 1,000-plus-page tome.

Rep. Conyers, when asked if he had read it, stated, “What, me read it? I don’t have two days and two lawyers to do that.”

Seems even the legislators have problems with the cross-referencing and legalese used in the bill. How she would come to understand it so completely and inerrantly is amazing. For those readers who have not  attempted to read and understand this bill, I challenge them to do so rather than take a medical doctor’s appraisal of a vastly incomprehensible, foot-thick stack of lawyerly jargon.

While HR 3200 is but one of several competing bills, it is anybody’s guess what the finally agreed upon one will dictate.

This entire debacle should have amounted to a simple line drawn in the sand by constitution-obeying representatives (oxymoronic?). Our constitution does not grant the federal government the power to do what they have illegally done in the so-called bailouts and GM  takeover.

In 1925, the Supreme Court ruled in Linder vs United States, “obviously, direct control of medical practice in The United States is beyond the power of the federal government.”

Either we are a constitutional government or we are not. No one is guaranteed medical coverage as this communist infection is promising  the suckers.

            Dale L.Bohling

Crescent City