Letters to the Editor July 9, 2010

Waste controversy about money, not the good of the community 

There is a lot of self-serving, misleading information being spread regarding the decision of the Del Norte Solid Waste Management Authority’s awarding of the new waste contract. The DNSWMA made a difficult decision in the best interest for all residents. The subcommittee gave a 1 percent evaluation edge to Hambro. The board as a whole acknowledged that they had never had a complaint against Recology (Del Norte Disposal) during its 16-year operation. 

If Hambro was selected, not only would Recology cease to exist here, but Julindra Recycling would also be out of business. This would give Hambro a monopoly on collection, recycling, transfer station (dump site) and transportation of garbage to White City, Ore.

Hambro told DNSWMA it would offer local Recology workers employment, but at what rate of pay, benefits and for how long? Some Recology employees are at top step, with full health benefits and multiple week vacations. Approximately a year ago Hambro ceased providing employee health care coverage and laid off several employees.

Hambro professes to be the only “local owned” company and that its money is spent locally. Yet it owns operations in Arcata, Grants Pass, Ore., and Lenoir, N.C. I bet it doesn’t tell those citizens it wants their business and support but is trucking the money to Crescent City.

Recology has been in Del Norte for 16 years and is an integral part of our community, as its office wall of sponsorship/donations indicates.

The controversy is nothing more than about money, not what’s good for the community. Hambro lost the bid and now is losing the respect of the community (banners at Fourth of July Parade — tacky). It wants to be a larger concern at the expense of two local businesses. If it can get complete control of the garbage the difference in the bid can be spread over the entire operation. The DNSWMA made the right decision. 

Paul J. Dillard

Crescent City

Editor’s note: Paul Dillard is on Del Norte County’s ad hoc committee for DNSWMA review.

Officers responded appropriately, used safe, less than lethal force 

The story of Daniel Sylvester’s death is tragic, yet we cannot forget the facts of the case.

First, the police were called to the residence because the mother felt she could not handle her mentally ill son. Second, when sheriff’s officers arrived, they said Sylvester became hostile and they were forced to deploy their Taser or Tasers to defend themselves.

I just read the heartbreaking account of the mother (“Attorney: Sylvester wasn't the aggressor,” June 26), yet it seems she is unaware that there is no such thing as a time limit to violence. In the article she states that there was no time for Sylvester to become violent, yet any experienced officer will tell you that it only takes an instant for someone to become dangerously violent.

The mother also states that this was intended to be a mental health call. This in and of itself tells a lot. The call was for assistance. The officers cannot help if the subject acts violently toward them. It is not the officers’ fault if that person chooses to act out violently.

The officers used a safe, less than lethal force option to subdue Sylvester. It is unfortunate that it ended in tragedy. Consider that an outside agency was called to investigate before you decide there is corruption. The Sheriff's Office is taking the appropriate steps to investigate the facts before it makes a decision, and it should be proud of this.

I commend and stand by the Sheriff's Office and the sheriff himself, and encourage others to do the same. Do not allow some money-hungry attorney to alter your knowledge of the facts.

Barry Evert

Crescent City

Extremely disappointed to hear students defend test incentives

First, let me say I was extremely disappointed to hear so many students think that changing grades based on one test is ethically correct (“Students on test incentives,” Coastal Voices, June 30).

Everyone should have their own ethical compass and setting an example of “a little work plus one good test equals raising your grade” is not a good ethics lesson! Students should rely on their own intrinsic value system. This is what will serve them well in their lives, careers, jobs, etc.

I guess the student who said, “I mean, would you work for free? Well, neither will we,” will never do volunteer work or go the extra mile in their job when there isn’t a reward involved. Kids should do their best in all things they encounter in life. Read “Punished by Rewards,” by Alfie Kohn.

I have contacted colleges and universities throughout the country and in the UC system. All of them said that they considered a semester grade to be the effort, responsibility, dedication, and work ethic of a semester of work. Many said they would like to know which grades were raised, especially since some scholarships are based on students’ grade point averages.

Secondly, the issue of the legality and fairness of this grade-raising policy has not been mentioned. Again, it is an unfair, discriminatory, and illegal practice unless all parents have been informed of this use of the test! It is also unfair, discriminatory, and illegal unless all students who scored at proficient and advanced have their grades raised!

Frankly, I am disgusted that our community is condoning this kind of educational policy for our kids!

Lisa Weaver Kramer

Gasquet