Is Waste Authority time-wasting a witch hunt?
Would a bottle of hydrogen peroxide help our elected officers at the county and city clean out the ear wax in their ears?
At the joint meeting of the city and county ("More talk, no action on waste," May 23) the majority of the community spoke to keep the Solid Waste Authority. To the current members of the Solid Waste Authority Board, I hope that you hear what the people said at that meeting.
Are there problems in the way the transfer station is run? No. Are there problems with how Recology picks up our garbage? The answer is no. I would hope that people who went to the meeting would come to Solid Waste Task Force meetings as it starts to work on its "five-year plan" that has to go to the state. Public input would help the members of the task force design that plan.
I would also hope that if there are problems with the bottom line at the authority that members would focus on that problem and stop playing the soccer game that they have played for so long. If there are problems with the bottom line, how much money we are spending to run the operation of the transfer station?
Why have they wasted so much time and haven't solved the problem with the books of the authority?
Maybe they have other reasons to play their soccer game. Is there a witch hunt, as some claim?
Richard Miles, Crescent City
What's Gitlin's motive in blocking airport?
I am struggling to understand why county Supervisor Roger Gitlin has stated that he will oppose the proposed set-aside of some Pacific Shores lots to enable the congressionally mandated airport expansion project to go forward.
He states that the loss of these lots would result in less property tax revenue generated, less services offered. These lots have an assessed value ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 each, with an average of $3,000.
Property tax is about 1 percent or an average of $30 per parcel per year, and the Airport Authority has made an offer to buy 225 lots from interested sellers, which would result in a loss to our tax base of approximately $6,750 per year.
Not a huge sum in the overall scheme of things when you consider the vast improvements to be made to our airport, all of which are sorely needed for our economic sustainability and will hopefully improve eco-tourism opportunities. (The additional 57 lots sought are either in tax default or publicly ownedand do not generate tax.)
Pacific Shores has, for many years now, been a public nuisance, and an expensive one to our county. There have been many instances of fires being started out there, numerous serious unlawful activities, as well as unregulated dumping. These activities involve responses by our fire departments, law enforcement agencies, county public works, and other agencies.
I urge Mr. Gitlin to drive to the lake end of Tell Boulevard, or take a trip down one of the side streets, to see examples of blight in this county. Unless Mr. Gitlin has a viable alternative, I cannot understand why he would oppose these purchases. If anything can be done to improve our economic outlook, while at the same time mitigating some of the blight at Pacific Shores, surely our supervisors have a duty to embrace the opportunity.
As an aside, I'm no fan of the Coastal Commission, but for once Del Norte County has a voice on the commission in the person of Supervisor Martha McClure - why all the constant jabbing at her?
I would hate to think there's some sort of political motive at work here.
Maureen Kevany-Jahn,Crescent City
Harbor frustrating recreational fishing
As a longtime tenant of Crescent City Harbor, I support our local sports fishermen as well as tourists.
We have had numerous complaints from sports fishermen who do not have adequate facilities to clean fish and no place to dispose of the waste. We have and will continue to lose revenue because we are not providing them with the facilities they need. When we make it difficult for visitors to enjoy their visit to our harbor and city, many businesses, not just the harbor, will feel the negative effects.
The sports fishermen lost two-thirds of their cleaning station, leaving only one. This has created a big inconvenience for the sports fishermen. This remaining cleaning station is located at the launch ramp, the highest traffic area in the harbor, creating a long wait for use. This also causes traffic congestion for those fishermen launching and landing their boats.
The fishermen are not allowed to dispose of their fish waste in the Dumpster provided by the RV park. They cannot dispose of the fish waste in the harbor. Fish and Game no longer permits them to fillet their catch at sea. Big problem.
Not having adequate cleaning facilities and disposal sites promotes fish waste to be dumped illegally.
This Harbor Commission needs to promote business rather than detour, quit looking for the pie in the sky, the high-end restaurants, which are not forthcoming, and take care of business at hand, our fishermen.
Rachel Towe, Crescent City