Sunday, May 11, 2008     Volume: 22, Issue: 40

New Times / Letters to the Editor

An open letter to the George W. Bush Presidential Library Committee

Jamie Ford - San Luis Obispo

In view of Southern Methodist University’s rejection to host your Presidential Library, we, the Friends of George, World Association for Recognition committee (FOG-WAR), would like to offer our support to establish a fitting monument recognizing President Bush and his Administration’s efforts toward spreading freedom and the light of democracy in the world.

We have researched a number of appropriate venues to house the history and highlights of this administration.

The “Bridge Over Troubled Waters” site, in New Orleans’ lower 9th Ward, is available at reasonable cost, if a domestic site is your preference.

Internationally, the “GITMO Constitutional Center for Law and Ethics” in Cuba would seem apt, as would the Baghdad “Green Zone of Democracy” in liberated Iraq.

We considered an Abu Ghraib “House of Freedom” venue, but it remains otherwise occupied.

One other possibility for your purview: perhaps a free-floating “Library of Missions Accomplished” set on an American military aircraft carrier?

We are certain that generous terms for any of these options could be arranged.

Sincerely, I.M. Clueless, president; Shirley Ugest, Vice President; Hal I. Burton, Comptroller—FOG-WAR Presidential Library Committee.

---

Not everyone will benefit from the solar rush

Robin Bell - Carrisa Plains

Former county supervisor Jerry Diefenderfer does not speak for me when he said, regarding the Topaz Solar Farm, “People see this as a less objectionable alternative.” The farm land that these solar companies want to convert into an industrial zone is right next to an area of small acreage parcels where people live. And I for one did not invest my life savings to retire in a home next to 6,000 plus acres of solar panels, And there are many other area residents who share that opinion.

Just like the windmill boom in west Texas that pitted neighbor against neighbor, these solar companies are offering big bucks to turn these large ranchers into overnight gazillionaires. Meanwhile, we little guys are left to live in the mess. So while a few get to cash in big time on the rush for renewable energy, there are many of us who will be the collateral damage with a ruined community, crushed dreams, and no big payoff like a few of our lucky neighbors.

---

Carrizo heritage site debate is a trip-wire

Kevin P. Rice - San Luis Obispo

Why is the year-old failed attempt to designate Carrizo as a U.N. World Heritage Site now a hot topic in the supervisor races? Far from being the benign “Nobel Prize for special places” ascribed by Sierra Club-elected Supervisor Jim Patterson, World Heritage Site status would have brought U.N. scrutiny and international enviro-leftist pressures upon SLO County.

They say we threw away millions of dollars in free advertising and tourism, yet Sierra Club director Andrew Christie wrote, “No. Carrizo is an hour’s drive from SLO and all traditional surrounding spots on the standard tourist itinerary.” (“County looks gift horse in the mouth,” April 5, 2007). Preservationists know thousands of tourists do not preserve, just as they know a multi-million dollar tourism economy at faraway Carrizo is a ruse. Carrizo simply is not a Yellowstone or Yosemite. Yet the ruse is perpetuated to entice moderate voters toward Sierra Club-beholden supervisors.

Succinctly, World Heritage status is exactly the kind of trip-wire the Sierra Club spends hours laying to obstruct progress such as the hypocritically opposed solar plants at Carrizo. Votes for Lenthall, Ovitt, and Arnold are therefore not pro-bulldozer. These are the votes that will keep special interests, such as the Sierra Club, from weaving their trip-wires into local governance.

---

Break the pro-development majority

Istar Holliday - Arroyo Grande

Four years ago, I moderated a forum at which Jerry Lenthall debated his opponent for District 3 Supervisor. Since, I’ve watched his votes and compared them to his earlier campaign promises and noted his loyal service to the developers who supported his political campaigns, even when it meant going against both public opposition and the recommendations of County Planning and the Planning Commission.

This year, I helped moderate a forum at which Jerry debated his opponent, Adam Hill. The old charm and promises of accessibility and transparency were there, but he also affirmed his “independence” of the advice of county agencies, who explored and made recommendations on the issues, and the public when he felt a decision was “right.” I suspect, given his present supporters, that his election will proffer more of the same for the next four years as for the last.

Then, last night, I heard Adam Hill speak at more length on issues important to us all: water and other finite resources, growth (smart and otherwise), infrastructure, building denser housing where services, jobs, and transportation exist, and retaining the rural atmosphere and recreation that lure tourists. I believe in the broad breadth of his support, his intelligence, and his integrity, and, though I am not in his district, I believe his presence on the Board of Supervisors will serve those in all districts well.

I urge those of you in District 3 to get to the polls, elect Adam Hill, and break the pro-development-at-all-costs majority that will affect all our futures negatively.

---

Adolescent thinkers will rely on adolescent sources

Jason Hilford - San Francisco

Letter writer Morgan Edwards implies Third District supervisor candidate Adam Hill has been “bad-mouthing” incumbent Jerry Lenthall for not “believ[ing] in [Mr. Hill’s] views” (“Do your homework before voting,” May 1). On the contrary, Mr. Hill has run a clean campaign; rather than stooping to attack credentials or character, Mr. Hill has, quite respectfully, refuted the incumbent’s political stances.

As a Cal Poly graduate (M.A., English, 2005) and former student of Mr. Hill’s, I also question Mr. Edwards’ citing the dubious Polyratings website, wherein students rate their professors anonymously—and, generally, after receiving their grade. Though sometimes helpful, polyratings often becomes a de facto sour-grapes forum. Did Mr. Edwards read the mostly positive comments about Mr. Hill on the site? Like the negatives, they should be taken with a grain of salt. Students—current and former—are of course entitled to their views, and here’s mine: Adam Hill respects his students and values their opinions; he is encouraging and insightful; he is available and helpful during office hours. If we must lower our discourse to the gutter of “character issues,” I would say that’s enough integrity for Mr. Hill to claim on his website, despite Mr. Edwards’ inept cries to the contrary.

Voters with adolescent sensibilities will inevitably rely on adolescent-level sources in forming an opinion: polyratings, Fox News, half-cocked letters to the editor (this one included). Intelligent voters will stick to the issues. As a San Luis Obispo County native, I would hope the latter are in the majority.

---

Lots of liberals attack this country

Fred Hartman - Arroyo Grande

I wonder if people who write such hate letters (“Start the impeachment proceedings,” May 1) cry when our flag passes by in a parade? I wonder if they salute or pledge allegiance? I do all of these and more because I love this country of my birth. Also, I’m very proud of my country. I also do it to show respect for those who have died to protect our liberty, and the right for the Krejsas to write such inaccurate drivel.

Clinton was impeached. It had nothing to do with his zipper. It was because he lied. It is astounding to me how left-wing liberal kooks in this country ignore horrible things being done in Iran, China, Russia, and elsewhere. Instead, they attack our country and its leaders. I’m sure they don’t realize, nor do they care, that their actions hurt and anger me. And probably some fellow Americans who read New Times.

---

Obama probably ruined Clinton's chances

Otis Page - Arroyo Grande

Obama has presented himself since his 2004 Democratic National Convention speech as a leader who can unite America across the political and racial divides. Obama’s long association with minister Wright contradicts this assertion.

While invoking God and Black Theology in the pulpit, Wright says the federal government manufactured the AIDS virus to kill black people, celebrates Louis Farrakhan as a great man, and likens American soldiers to terrorists. While Obama has admonished Wright for these comments he definitely tolerated them for a long time. This suggests if not proves Obama is a divider and not a uniter. Obama’s association with Wright has unintentionally but effectively employed the “race card.”

More than 90 percent of blacks in Pennsylvania voted for Obama, a statistic that is believed to be repeated nationwide. This is an exemplification of racial politics that, along with Black Theology, is expressively anti-white! Does Obama admonish blacks to be objective in their voting? Has he specifically admonished Wright for his politically motivated anti-white diatribes.? Absolutely not. Obama relishes the dedicated black vote.

Are Democrats serious that this man should be their nominee for president? Obama has probably ruined Hillary’s once-certain election to be the next Democratic president. Way to go, Obama!

---

We need real eminent domain reform, not hidden agendas

Ron Faas - Santa Maria

Proposition 98 on the June 3 ballot would only deepen the water crisis that threatens California’s economy now and in the future. Either intentionally or through negligence, Prop. 98 includes flawed language that could prohibit the acquisition of land or water needed to develop public water projects we desperately need to provide safe, quality drinking water for California’s ever-growing population.

Prop. 98 is also one of the worst anti-environment measures in decades. Hidden in the definitions of Prop. 98 are provisions that would invalidate many of California’s programs to protect the environment and our natural resources. These hidden provisions could jeopardize important environmental laws and regulations that protect our coastline, open space, forests, air quality, streams, and guard against climate change and global warming.

Promoted by wealthy landlords and mobile home park owners for their own financial gain, Prop. 98 is an attack on renters that would eliminate rent control and important protections for all California renters. More than 1 million Californians depend on rent control to survive. Prop. 98 would also jeopardize numerous laws that protect all 14 million California renters, including the fair return of rental deposits and laws protecting tenants from unfair and unjust evictions.

Proposition 99 is the only true eminent domain reform measure on the June ballot. This strong reform provides ironclad protections for California homeowners, and is a direct response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s outrageous Kelo decision that allowed government to take homes for private development.

Unlike Prop. 98 (the “Hidden Agendas Scheme”), Prop. 99 is honest and powerful reform that will prevent government from taking a home through eminent domain to be transferred to a private developer.

Don’t take the bait on 98. We’ll be just fine with 99! Vote NO on Prop. 98; YES on Prop. 99.

---