Government must analyze state of Jefferson proposal
I am writing in response to Sue Sullivan's letter ("Jefferson backers should provide needed info," Feb. 13) in which she calls for "an independent fiscal analysis being provided by the group that supports the state of Jefferson."
Would Ms. Sullivan actually accept such an analysis by the Jefferson proponents as "independent"? Of course not.
By placing the onus upon voters for gathering, sorting and presenting appropriate statistics to government, she demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of our democratic republic: Voters select, hire and pay public servants to know where these stats are, what they mean and how they should be applied to any situation. We are not supposed to do the work for government; government is to do the work for us.
Unfortunately, the information Ms. Sullivan values so much is buried in the very bureaucratic jungle that the state of Jefferson is designed to eliminate. Much is not even available to the public except through a long and tedious process of untangling often contradictory gov-speak.
County government holds the keys to unlock more information than do the voters and is currently digging through the numbers on our behalf.
Time to reflect on many consequences of new state
A newly created state of Jefferson would require paying for and running a new Department of Motor Vehicles, along with new license plates, driver's licenses, registration fees and traffic laws.
A new state would need replacement of Caltrans to maintain highways and require replacing California Highway Patrol with a new law enforcement entity with a new statewide penal code and all new equipment and patrol cars. An entirely new justice system with all these attendant expenses.
Pelican Bay Prison employees would leave to be reassigned jobs to other California prisons, no longer spending California paychecks in our county.
This is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. There would indeed be many other consequences as well. Truly time to reflect on the big picture.
Ernie Miller,Smith River
Del Norte's lifeblood depends on fixed roads
Lets think about Del Norte County.
Nothing but a complete park, as some desire.
How about the new state of Jefferson, as some desire?
Rely completely on tourism, as some desire.
What about industry and jobs, as many desire?
None of the above will happen without roads into Del Norte County. Remember, "if you bought it, a truck brought it," and trucks need roads.
Everything,from groceries to gasoline to toothpicks to booze, must be trucked in. To keep Del Norte County alive and well, the roads must be fixed.
Carolyn Hilger,Crescent City
Can't believe Sutter would turn away patients for profit
In regard to the last paragraph of Dale Bohling's excellent Feb. 1 letter, "Corporate greed driving Critical Care downsizing," it is hard to believe that a non-profit health care corporation with a local hospital Board of Directors would contrive to drive patients away in order to qualify for additional government money.
I understand it needs to reduce the number of beds to qualify for "Critical Access" status, which will result in additional government money. And officials say this needs to be done because this hospital is losing money, even though, according to Dr. Greg Duncan, it always produced a goodly amount of money to be sent back to the corporation until they moved the bookkeeping out of the local area.
I suspect the money loss might be similar to the old joke about the farmer who lost a bunch of money on hogs because the price of pork bellies went way up and he didn't have any. Might it be the same with Sutter Health and Critical Access?
I have read that even though Sutter Health Corporation has non-profit status, it managed to pay several of its executives an annual salary of over a million dollars each. (Can't have any profit. Got to get rid of the money somehow.)
I know that Sutter Health and the Sutter Coast Board of Directors have frightened and angered this community with their arrogance and secretive attitude. And I have heard that Sutter Health prices are higher than most other hospitals.
Still, in spite of all of that, I can't believe it would deliberately set out to drive patients away in order to get its hands on more government money. Surely it would not stoop that low. Would it?
Don't understand need to cut down trees for airport
As I sat on the front porch of my home in Gasquet, finally after a rain needed for the spring to come, I looked upon the efforts of our work to make the yard a haven. The upcoming spring would show the magnolia in blume, the pine trees allowing shade to the backyard, and the rhodies - they were going to finally be vibrant.
As I drank the coffee, I realized, all was at risk. We had come to this area for reasons, most being country living, sounds of the river, trees, coolness of shade during beautiful summer months, and the ability to grow something.
The neighbors had received the notice, the contracted markings on the trees and shrubs, (approximately 338 trees). According to the notice, the aviation people have told numerous neighbors to prepare for the removal, and/or topping of trees, vegetation, or structures, that do not comply with FAA guidelines, for the Gasquet Airport to be in compliance to such rulings ("No exception for trees," Triplicate, Feb. 11).
Wait, this is my property, my trees, and my work. To be told it is mandatory was disheartening. Not just told, the notice from the contracted persons, non-negotiable, the result would seem determined. The local residents, have asked, what do we do? As far as law and mandates go, nothing, but let us ask, can we come to some kind of understanding? This is our property, our dreams, our work.
We understand the need for flight pattern safety, what we don't understand is the need a barren proximity to allow the few expert pilots to navigate the approach to the Gasquet Airport. Please look at the neighborhood and its residents who have strived to prevail in such a pristine and difficult area.
Likely, the proposed project will not be completed, not here, not in Gasquet, not without disagreement.