Del Norte Triplicate Readers

Required CEQA procedure not followed in walkway's demolition

This is in response to the Sept. 3 editorial, "Downtown view improves," regarding Tsunami Landing. It is the editor's conclusion that the aesthetic effect of the removal of the landing is improved and that the structure was an aging, rotted wooden structure.

That may well be true, however, the problem remains that the city did not follow the required procedures as outlined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that sets forth a procedure that is required to be followed to protect the public from the negative impact of any project that effects the environment.

In the case of Tsunami Landing, the city removed 22,500 square feet

of covered walkway, 130 lights and a drainage system on the top of the

landing which had 50 drains that collected and diverted the water

directly into the city storm drain system.

Had the city followed the CEQA requirements, it would have completed

an Environmental Impact Report that would have identified the areas of

negative impact and it would have been required to mitigate those areas

(solve the problems) before it would have been allowed to tear down the


The issue is not whether it should have torn down Tsunami Landing but

more importantly it did not follow the required lawful procedures to

protect the public by completing an EIR and mitigating the negative

impact of its actions.

The city is required as is any entity to follow the law. There is no

environmental impact report; no negative declaration, and no notice of


So, what about the negative impact that its actions will cause? It

has no approved plans or funding to mitigate the negative impact that

the removal of Tsunami Landing will cause the general public, ie:

drainage, landscaping, lighting, safety issues, etc., and for this the

city is responsible and should be held accountable.

Tony Barnes

Crescent City

Triplicate shouldn't have printed so much detail from Taylor case

I can't believe The Triplicate felt the need to share so many details

surrounding the Taylor Powell murder ("Death Details Told: How victim

died affects the charges," Sept. 1).

There was absolutely no need to publicize the gruesome details of

that tragic night, and I'm appalled at The Triplicate and Megan Hansen's

callous disregard for Taylor's family and their many friends and loved

ones within our small community, all of whom have been greatly affected

by his premature passing.

In a community as close-knit as ours, you can't go anywhere without

running into someone that knew Taylor or knows someone in his family. I

understand the need to cover the news, but surely the gist of the

hearing could have been conveyed without drawing out all of the horrific

details of that night.

Taylor's family and friends have to cope with their loss every day,

and they do not need such a detailed reminder of the terrible manner in

which he was taken from them.

Maybe The Triplicate also should have thought about how this article

may impact the upcoming trial. Now that it has so highly publicized the

events of that night, the prosecution will more than likely have to seek

another venue in which to try the case. The chances of finding an

impartial jury have got to be slim to none in a community this small,

now that everyone has insider knowledge of the investigation and the


Maybe next time The Triplicate should exercise some good judgment and

common sense before printing a story like this, and show some respect

and compassion for Taylor and his family.

Joel Pena

Crescent City

Have known Silvey for 30 years; giver her chance at vindication

I live in Utah and just read your article about Eileen Silvey

("Scandal at the Senior Center: Former manager jailed; suspected of

embezzlement," Aug. 20).

I was completely alarmed by the biased, sensational nature of the

article. It read more like tripe from the Enquirer or The Sun than fair

and balanced journalism.

I have known Eileen for over 30 years and believe that she deserves a

better chance at vindication before your printed conjecture convicts

her. No matter what her personal outcome is, I know that her family and

friends will always stand by her.

I hope that your paper will seriously consider upping its remarkably

low journalistic standards after this.

Grant Patterson

Salt Lake City