Letters to the Editor Sept. 06, 2011

By Del Norte Triplicate Readers September 06, 2011 08:29 pm

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 structure.

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 determination.

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 evidence.

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