Letters to the Editor
From our weekly issue dated December 10, 2008
(Editor’s Note: Views and commentary, including statements made as fact, are strictly those of the letter-writers.)
Typed, double-spaced letters are considered for publication. Hand-written letters that are double-spaced and legible also can be considered. “Thank you” submissions are not accepted as letters
Editor made mistake
From Tonia Lavine
Cave Junction
My mom and I took my 4-year-old son to the tree lighting at 6 p.m. Saturday night, Dec. 6 like the paper stated. When we showed up, the tree was lit, and everyone was gone, including Santa.
Not only did we show up at the appropriate time, but so did about 20 to 25 other families with their young children in hopes of seeing Santa, and go caroling with the high school choir, and have cookies and cider.
We asked the people at the Junction Inn, and they said that everything had happened between 4:15 and 4:30 p.m. So now I and a lot of other families have a bunch of disappointed children, and it is up to us to try and explain to them why Santa let them down and was not there.
Merry Christmas from a very disappointed parent.
Editor big Grinch
From Karen L.
Cave Junction
Last night (Dec. 6) was the saddest night I have seen in Cave Junction. It wasn’t about someone dying or a bad accident, it was the sound of around 20 cars of children at 6 p.m. when Santa Claus was not there (on the Junction Inn vacant lot) as printed by the newspaper.
So we as parents, grandparents or loving relatives gathered our beloved children out in the cold to go see “the man of the hour” for all kids, only to see that at 6 p.m. as the paper said he would be there, turn to a large disappointment and to calm their crying children trying to explain to 2-to-8-year-olds what happened and why everything was gone.
Neither the newspaper nor the Illinois Valley Chamber of Commerce had this awful duty. Did the editor even care when he was carefully typing out the night’s events; was it a typo in the time? Can this town explain to our kids why Santa did not show at the hour they were told by us all day, while they waited for the right time?
It was pretty sad, like the Who who stole Christmas. My grandson was crying and saying that “all he wanted to do was see Santa Claus and have a nice Christmas,” now in his 4-year-old mind he feels that he won’t because he didn't get to “tell” Santa his Christmas wishes.
This was so wrong and there is no way the editor can fix this big “Uh Oh!” This town and the paper that we rely on to guide us needs to get it straight, especially in these times when we are all trying to give our kids a good Christmas and enjoy all the things that town has to offer at the times the paper has told us.
I won’t say “Thank you” at the end of this note because there was no thanks last night for these children, maybe they are (the children) more forgiving?
(Editor’s Note: The error is entirely mine, and no fault of the chamber.)
‘David & Goliath’
From Jean Blevins
Grants Pass
A David & Goliath-type story emerged during the Dec. 3. Grants Pass City Council meeting when it upheld the Urban Area Planning Commission’s decision to deny Hellgate Jetboats Excursions a major site plan review and major variance.
Hellgate, a multimillion dollar corporation, and one lone woman, locked horns several years ago. The issue was an above-ground 4,000-gallon gasoline tank used to fuel the jetboats.
Since 1995, Arden McConnell, whose home is across the street from Hellgate’s gas tank, often had complained to owner Robert Hamlyn that toxic diesel fumes from the gasoline delivery truck fueling Hellgate’s tank, and the fumes released during the transfer of the fuel to the tank, were polluting the air in and around her home and grounds, as well as the rest of the neighborhood.
When McConnell eventually filed a formal complaint with the city of Grants Pass, it became apparent that the above-ground gasoline tank should have originally been classified as a Marine Fueling Station, a classification that requires compliance with stringent safety codes. The city found that the gas tank had been operating under a misclassification since its installation in 1991.
Marine Fueling Stations have safety codes which the existing tank does not meet. The tank sits next to the Riverside Inn Motel, behind a fence, on S.E. Eighth Street overlooking Rogue River. Hamlyn, faced with replacing a nonconforming gas tank, filed for a major variance to replace the existing tank with a larger 6,000 gallon gasoline tank in the same location. That variance was denied.
McConnell has persisted since 1995. “This is a community issue. I’m grateful city officials have taken this action,” she stated. “Our community comes first. Toxic fumes overpower our homes, yards, and pollute the very air we breath each year during Hellgate’s yearly five-month operating season. It’s been going on for nearly 20 years with little cooperation offered by Hellgate to provide a solution.” McConnell proposed keeping the new fueling operation away from residences and neighborhoods.
Hamlyn stated that he is undecided if he will appeal the council’s decision. “It’s been a 13-year struggle. What a wonderful Christmas present,” said McConnell.
One person can make a difference.
WOPR needs rewriting
From Roger Brandt
Cave Junction
BLM wants to create timber jobs by increasing logging in Josephine County under the new Western Oregon Plan Revision (WOPR), but acknowledges that these jobs would be created at the expense of losing an undetermined number of jobs and income in other economic sectors.
BLM provides no information to explain what these losses might be and who would be affected.
The following is an attempt to answer the question about who would be affected, and how much we might lose under WOPR. The information comes from a report that can be downloaded from a link at the bottom of the highway199.org home page.
The report explains how increased clear-cutting of BLM forest could result in most Illinois Valley homes losing approximately $11,000 in property value. Josephine County can expect to lose a total of around $500 million and the state of Oregon some $9 billion. Ironically, many land owners support WOPR because of “O&C tax savings” without realizing that it would take more than 80 years for these so-called “tax savings” to pay back to land owners what they likely would lose in land value.
The report also explains how WOPR would impair the future of travel-and-recreation dependent businesses in Oregon by eliminating forest assets that the community needs to make it attractive to the traveling public. In Josephine County, this represents an impairment that could cost us an annual loss of tens of millions of dollars in tourism revenues and related jobs.
Quality of life could be significantly diminished under WOPR, which would reduce the marketability of Josephine County to retirees, home-based entrepreneurs, inventors, telecommuters and knowledge-based industries looking to locate their enterprise. This represents thousands of future jobs and income sources that would be driven out of Oregon to places that offer quality-of-life assets these people want.
WOPR would commit each acre of BLM land to an unimaginable sluggish economic production cycle of 80 to 100 years while rejecting all other participants who could help to make this land productive every year. In the vicious playing field of the global economy, WOPR is sending the slowest player onto the field of fast-moving global economic challenges while the rest of us are forced to sit on the bench and hope for the best.
The current WOPR version must be rejected and rewritten to assure that the timberland is managed to retain our property value,
increase our marketability, and contribute to our economic adaptability by creating jobs for timber and nontimber industries. The plan needs to focus on timber management that makes these lands economically productive every year, not once in the lifetime of a human.
Wonders about sheriff
From Donna Lasater
Redmond, Ore.
What was Sheriff Gilbertson thinking when he wrote that letter to the editor in response to Carol Dickson’s complaint to the Grants Pass newspaper?
What prompted him to call her a despot; of accusing her of attacking the sheriff’s office with misleading questions? His response came across as paranoid and unprofessional.
What was he thinking when he responded by e-mail to her letter? Mrs. Dickson simply complained about the use of manpower for a crosswalk sting in Cave Junction when there is such a shortage of deputies to provide services to the county. He called her “unethical, evil, a true despot and vindictive.” Is this the example he set for his employees on how to treat the public?
He is an elected official, the chief law enforcement officer in Josephine County. He certainly isn’t acting like it. Does he treat all his constituents that way when they question/disagree with the way he runs his department? Last I knew, Josephine County was still part of the United States, where we are allowed to hold our elected officials responsible without fear of recrimination.
What was he thinking when he claimed to have learned a lot about the type of employee Mrs. Dickson was while employed at the sheriff’s office, and then saying he would have fired her? His sources are woefully wrong, and the conclusion he drew from them shows poor judgment on his part.
I am a retired Josephine County Sheriff’s Office sergeant. I was Carol Dickson’s supervisor while she served the department as a dispatcher. She was one of the best, and she was voted as Dispatcher of the Year by the other sheriff’s office employees. She attended classes at Rogue Community College during her off-duty hours and earned her associate-of-science degree in business administration. Her additional education qualified her for the position of senior dispatcher.
Her ambition prompted her to apply for and be hired for a patrol position. She patrolled on various shifts, in various areas, making car stops, investigating crimes, writing excellent reports, making arrests and appearing in court. She was highly respected by her peers and employees of other agencies (Grants Pass Dept. of Public Safety, OSP, D.A.’s Office, Juvenile Dept.). Because of her exemplary performance on patrol, she was selected to fill a rotating position in the Detective Division. There she investigated and solved a variety of major crimes. She was the first woman in the Detective Division and was well respected by her peers. Again, members of the sheriff’s office elected her Detective of the Year.
If that’s the kind of employee Gilbertson would fire, that makes him an even less-qualified person to fill the office of sheriff. He should be proud to have employees like Carol Dickson. Perhaps his flawed investigation of Deputy Dickson’s past performance is an indication of his ability as an investigator.
If I were a resident of Josephine County today, I would join Dickson to point out misuses of county funds and mishandling of responsibilities by elected officials. In fact, I hope that more Josephine County citizens become involved in holding their elected officials responsible.
And I wonder what the sheriff is thinking now.
‘Time for Cha-Cha-change’
From Miguel Kime
Cave Junction
Many good people smoke marijuana. Most people who do not smoke marijuana know a good person (or two, or more) who do. The courts and jails are full of good people who smoke marijuana.
For those concerned with America’s 4.5 million uninsured children, the federal deficit or the soon-to-be bankrupt Social Security system, here’s the math:
Each year there are 700,000 arrests for marijuana-related offenses at a cost of more than $7 billion. In an open letter to the president from 500 economists, including Nobel winner Milton Friedman, it was estimated to cost taxpayers $2.4 billion on the federal level and $5.3 billion on the state level.
The fact is that Josephine County is a very poor county in a very green state. I suggest Josephine County become the Mendocino County of Oregon. Save the county, smoke a joint and then go to the library and read a book.
Advertisement:
Hayes Hill et al.
From Greg Walter, Jefferson State Financial Group,
Cave Junction
I think I might be able to provide some clarity (or open a can of worms) to last week’s letter to the editor from Larry Smith.
According to the Oregon Geographic Names book, seventh edition, by Lewis McArthur, Hayes Hill was named for Jarvis Hayes, a pioneer settler from the 1860s who homesteaded on the Applegate side (I found this in some further research).
Interestingly, Hayes Hill proper is due east of the Hwy. 199 Hayes Hill that we all know so well. This name is established in this reference, and I think can only be changed with an application to the OGNB (Oregon Geographic Names Board).
Here is where this story takes a turn, and Larry may have to build a case on this to have it hold: Fort Hay (or Hays) was first established as a Donation Land Claim by William Hay in November 1854 and would be used for a brief period (as was Fort Briggs) as a fortified farmhouse during the 1855-56 Indian wars. Hence the spelling Fort Hay or, Fort Hays.
The importance here is that I think we are dealing with two different families, and clarifications can get generalized as to the proper spelling and subsequent confusion. A similar case can be found in Curry County with regard to the Frye Family of Marial and Powers area and the “Fry Place,” south of Agness, Ore.
More research data can be found at Kerbyville Museum at 592-5252 (by appointment), and the Josephine County Historical Society. I hope this helps.
Children’s gifts needed
From Louise Voice
Cave Junction
If we people of Illinois Valley don’t step up and make donations and/or buy a toy for the CJ Cares Christmas program, many children will not get a gift for Christmas.
I want to challenge everyone who works in the valley to donate to the CJ Cares Christmas program. We can make a difference to a child, and Christmas is for kids, so let’s take care of our own.
(Editor’s Note: Donations of cash or toys can be taken to Fred & Sarah Ball at Bi-Rite Auto Parts behind Michelle’s Family Restaurant).
Concealed weapons view
From Raul Ramirez, Retired Marion County sheriff
Chief Executive Officer Oregon State Sheriffs Association
The Oregonian is flat wrong in its op ed, “Keep weapons permits public,” in a number of respects. Of course, the newspaper is absolutely right when it guards the public’s right to know what its elected officials and governments are doing.
Sunshine and transparency are central to U.S. democracy, as is the oversight role of the press. This does not mean that every public record should be subject to review by all who request it. While requests by the press are often not objectionable (as recognized by our Open Meetings Law, which grants media access to closed meetings but prohibits disclosure), there is no basis for a public body to differentiate and grant access to public records and documents to some (a responsible press) and deny access to others such as criminals, mass mailers, gun groups and the like.
The Medford Mail Tribune filed a suit against Jackson County Sheriff Mike Winters, who denied its request for all concealed weapons permits he had issued, including that of school teacher Shirley Ann Katz. Among other arguments, the sheriff contended that ORS 192.502(2) relating to personal privacy exempts the record from disclosure. Under this law, public disclosure may be withheld if it would constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy unless the public interest by clear and convincing evidence requires disclosure in the particular instance.
Oregon’s sheriffs are taking steps to ensure that personal information of concealed weapons permit holders remain private. In Guard Publishing Co. v. Lane County School District, the court clearly established that individuals (public employees, school teachers and substitutes, gun permit holders, and the like) may individually request that personal information remain private. Oregon’s sheriffs have taken or are considering steps to afford gun permit holders this opportunity under current law. And, this is the right thing to do.
The courts of Michigan have recognized privacy related to identity of gun permit holders in Mager v. Dept. of State Police. Those with legitimate need for a gun permit will not want their need, their name and address, and the fact that they carry a weapon to become known publicly. Indeed, disclosure would defeat the purpose of the concealed weapon permit. The point of having the permit is to be able to be armed safely without public knowledge. Privacy of this information makes sense.
The information should be deemed private in the case of any permit holder. To do otherwise invites trouble, whether it be aggression directed at an armed permit holder or a burglary in search of firearms.
The Oregonian editorial is off base in other respects when the newspaper suggests that there should be public oversight of the permitting function in the interest of public safety, to be sure that only the right sorts of people are obtaining concealed gun permits. There is little point. Oregon law does not permit Oregon’s sheriffs any discretion to deny concealed weapons permits except in very limited circumstances.
Stripping sheriffs of discretion to say “No” was a bad idea when the law was last amended and remains so today. However, the answer to The Oregonian’s public safety concern is to change the law restricting sheriffs’ discretion -- not to grant access to personal information where individual and community safety clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the personal information should remain private.
Advertisement:
