Letters for Oct. 7, 2021

Folly of the recall

Re: “Should Newsom be recalled?” (Newslines, Sept. 2):

In 2018, Californians elected Gavin Newsom as the governor of California with a 62 percent vote. Republicans, including local ones, and QAnon activists decided to do a recall of our governor. Trump had $200,000 sent in and ordered others to contribute.

The campaign pushed by the Republicans was that California should be like Florida and Texas where the Trump governors have ordered that no one wear a mask and no residents—including health-care workers, those taking care of elderly sick in nursing homes and others—should be forced to get vaccinated. Meanwhile, John Hopkins University just reported that California has the lowest infection rate per 100,000 people in the country.

On Sept. 14, the recall was defeated by a 63 percent no vote, so Gov. Newsom was “re-elected.” Don’t expect the Republicans to reimburse the taxpayers the
$300 million it cost.

Bob Mulholland

Collective responsibility

Re: “Violent ends” (News, Sept. 14):

Who bears the responsibility for the fatal Teichert Pond shooting by underage teenagers? They are not legally or neurologically adults. Who gave them license to terrorize the homeless and regard the homeless as the “other,” undeserving and scum?

Is it the Chico City Council member who said we will move them and move them and move them until they disappear? Is it the local citizen who has promoted citizen arrests and vigilantism? Is it the founders of Citizens for a Safe Chico and Chico First with their incendiary language? Is it the parents of the teenagers who did not properly secure their firearms? Is it the passive citizens of Chico who silently and with their vote authorize inhuman treatment of our homeless, relying on various conspiracy theories—“they’re from out of town” and “if we make it too comfortable for them, then all the state’s homeless will come here”?

Now is the time for deep soul searching by all of us. This should not now or ever be happening.

Julian Zener

Two against Tuscan

I oppose the formation of the Tuscan Water District, as presented by Silmaril Group and McGowan Farming, et al. This plan is not in the best interest of our community.

Our small farmers are increasingly important to the health of our community. As we have seen during the COVID pandemic, large farms suffered from many problems. Inability to sell product (milk and potatoes were dumped!), big meat processors struggled (Tyson’s chairman said “the food supply chain is breaking”), and so on.

Our many small farmers produce food throughout the surges of the pandemic, and continue to do so.

Turning control of our water resources to an outfit that thinks the larger the landownership, the bigger the vote, is not a viable option—no matter how many acres of land they own. Acres do not vote; people vote.

Carla Resnick

I am writing in regard to the Tuscan Water District. I strongly oppose this district! During California’s emergency drought we cannot legitimize a privatized water grab by a small group of farmers. Water is a resource that belongs to us all and thus should be monitored, protected and legislated by elected officials with input from the people affected by its decisions.

Understandably, this Tuscan Water coalition will only have its own profits and sustainability as its priorities, not the rest of the water users and those in charge of protecting our many other water related resources. Giving a share of our water freely to be self-managed by this private group is not in everyone’s best interest.

Lisa Holeman

Indiscretion a virtue?

Re: “From all sides” (News, Sept. 17):

Sean Morgan will not be fined for discussing confidential information about the city’s lawsuit. Sad part is, I agree with that. Sean had a responsibility to communicate to his constituents, to let them know where he stands. So few council members are as transparent as Sean Morgan is.

James Hutchinson

1 Comment

  1. Dear Editor:
    Was some of your thunder stolen recently by Upgraded Living’s “Worst of Chico” issue? The periodical’s September offering boldly displayed its cover prior to the CN&R’s annual and highly-anticipated “Best of Chico” issue. As a deliberate punch or not, UL, a grammatician’s nightmare, caught me off guard. Hey, this is playing bumper cars with the Chico News and Review! Maybe it’s a case of “All’s fair in love and journalism?” And, according to its Editor-in-Chief, “The Worst of Chico” was so well received, it will be coming back in September of 2022. Maybe UL should opt to review the local eateries for their hot brats with the cover, “The Wurst of Chico.” It’s food for thought.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.