More businesses help fire victims
I just wanted to say thank you to several businesses in the community who, out of the kindness of their hearts, were able to help the victims of the July 6 Harbor fire. The Pilot inadvertently omitted the following names from my Thank You list published on Page 2A of the July 31 issue:
Doctor 'D' Autocare, U-Haul, Gold Beach Lumber, U.S. Bank (Portland) and Tony's Storage, Oceanview Storage and KURY Radio.
Our yard sale on Saturday raised $1,500 that will go directly to the fire victims. The remaining unsold items will be donated to the Outreach Gospel Mission. It is a win-win situation for everyone.
Thank you one and all for the donations of items and for coming to our yard sale.
Who's to blame for clinic boondoggle?
As most folks in Brookings know, the Curry Health District Clinic is under construction here in Brookings.
Mr. McMillan, the CEO of the CHD, sent a proposal to the City Council asking the city to annex Brookings into the CHD. After reading McMillan's opening comments, I became "steamed" as they say.
First, he is admitting that the facility will not sustain itself without dinging the taxpayers. He told me, face to face, in Gold Beach, that the taxpayers would NOT be on the hook for this project. Second, the "study" he presented is seven years old, or more, considering the time to compile the data. Third, his outdated data indicates that 30 percent of the residents surveyed back before 2004 said they would pay for a hospital. The project never got off the ground. Many of those folks may have changed their minds now, given general state of the economy, and perhaps even their own.
Tell me this: how does one start a project and THEN tell the taxpayers it will not sustain itself and the taxpayers should guarantee a poorly planned venture. Why did the city let him get land rezoned and start building if the clinic cannot sustain itself? How did this happen? What were the city fathers thinking?
This is nuts!
All existing services and taxes continue to go up, so we sure as heck don't need to be bailing some dreamer out. Who, at the city level, is responsible for this boondoggle? Inquiring minds want to know.
Nobody likes an8-second ride
I am writing in response to your article on the recent rodeo in Curry County. I want Brookings residents to know that there's nothing more cowardly than abusing animals.
Bulls are often tormented in the chutes prior to their release in order to rile them into a frenzy. Bucking straps are cinched tightly around their sensitive groin areas, and riders dig spurs into the animals' flesh, which causes additional pain. Bulls buck beyond their normal abilities in an attempt to rid themselves of the straps. Bulls commonly strain tendons and ligaments and tear muscles, and many animals die or are euthanized after suffering injuries and broken bones.
Abusing animals and calling it "entertainment" is cruel and cowardly. Whether you're sitting on the bull's back or paying someone else to do it, the one sure thing about bull riding is that animals will suffer and die.
For more information, please visit the website BuckTheRodeo.com .
Yes, it's time to 'Drain the Swamp'
Lawmakers frustrated with Obama over timber payments.
Unfortunately, the present administration in Washington D.C. does not have priority or the time to recognize rural communities. They'd rather spend their efforts making "tee times" for Obama, scheduling his day-time and nighttime talk show appearances and vacations, and writing his apologize speeches to Mexico, ... for the Untied States objecting to the allowing of Mexican citizens and drug cartel members to illegally enter the United States across our borders.
November 2010 is very close. "Drain the Swamp" and clean up the U.S. Congress
Effort to thwart will of the people
Well here we go again. This time all three branches of government and the news media have conspired to thwart the will of the American people. Only hours before it was to take effect, federal judge Susan R. Bolton, a Clinton appointee, ruled that Arizona's new immigration law was unconstitutional. There is one big problem with this ruling.
Unbeknownst to most Americans, because they have no knowledge of the clearly written provisions of the Constitution, this judge has absolutely no authority to make such a ruling. If you read that document you will find in article 3 section 2 clause 2 the following rule of law established by our founders; "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, AND THOSE IN WHICH A STATE SHALL BE PARTY The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction."
What this means is that only the Supreme Court can hear this case and issue a ruling. The lower courts have no authority in this matter. SO where is Congress on this travesty? They have complete regulatory power over the courts. Why is the governor of Arizona silent? where is the news media? where is Fox news? They are playing us for fools that is where they are! The people of Arizona are ready to take up arms if things do not change.
Now I am sure some progressive control freaks will deny this but in the words of Perry Mason their opinion is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial!
Arthur D. Larason
A victory forthe homeowner
RE: Article 7-31-2010 on page 3 A in the Curry Coastal Pilot was sweet , however in part it will need to be corrected.
The local court ruled in favor of the homeowner and the landlord lost the eviction. The case would have ended at the lower court but the landlord, David Itzen, president of Emerald Coast Estates, appealed the ruling. The Appeal Court heard the case and the Itzens lost again. Other than that it was a great article. And all is again well in the Land of Lilys and Beautiful Ocean Beaches.
Now homeowners in Oregon on leased land with restricted rules of placement of for sale signs, have options of placement of for sale signs. I would like to thank our Attorney David Tilton for doing a brilliant and professional job on the appeal and everyone who was supportive in the case, friends, neighbors and family. Oh, and Mr. Peter Ferris, executive director and lobbyist, Oregon Manufactured Homeowners United http://omhu.org, for his continuing work on behalf of homeowners in Oregon manufactured home parks.
Thank you all.
Gary and Sharon Davis, homeowner in Emerald Coast Estates
Without them,no Safety City
Safety City has just completed another successful year and 2010 was the 13th year that we have been in Brookings.
While we did not have as many attending this year as we did in 2009, it was another great year. As in the past, the program was totally free for the children. In other Oregon areas, the program costs the family $50. Because of the continued generosity of our sponsors, who give either cash or product, it continues to be free and will always stay that way.
Below are the sponsors who helped this year and we wish to note that many of them have been with us since the program began. We thank them all. Also, as you see the list of names, please remember how community-oriented they are and give them our thanks by word or by being customers.
These sponsors are: Chetco Federal Credit Union; Mr. Phil Abbott; Curry Public Transit; Brookings-Harbor Lions Club; Mrs. Juli Payne; Coos Curry Electric; Village Express; Coastal Copiers; Tiny Caudell; State Farm-Daryn Farmer; Gerald Ross Insurance; The Eye Center; Mrs. Betty Byrtus; Dairy Queen; Windjammer; Soroptimist International; Wild River Pizza; McDonald's; Mac Alexander; Cal-Ore Life Flight; Little Bay Motors; Curry Equipment; Brookings Police Reserves; Mrs. Jean Johnson; Brookings Emblem Club; Brookings Elks Lodge; Wild Rivers Community Fund; Barron's Furniture; Ray's Food Place; Shop Smart; ACTS Oregon; Town and Country Veterinarian Clinic; Mattie's Pancakes; Evergreen Bank.
Did you count them? 35 sponsors who continue to make this program a part of our community. Would you like to be added to this list? Contact me through the Brookings Police Department or call me, 541-469-5253 andndash; ask for Dan.
We also must remember that it takes volunteers to staff the program and we extend to all of them our heartfelt Thank You. Without them there would be no Safety City.
Dan Palicki, coordinator
Put down cell phone and drive!
I've Had IT! PUT your cells phone DOWN! Remember andndash; there's a law andndash; DO NOT drive while on your cell phones. Duh andndash; no brainer.
I have almost gotten hit by so many people andndash; gabbing on their cell phones. I have been in the process of crossing the street, with 10 dogs no less, and there you are andndash; chatting away on your cell phones, while cutting right in front of me. I mean how do you not SEE me with TEN dogs, no less.
I know cell phones are great for many things. Emergencies, important business, etc. But we have gotten to the point where we are connected to these little phones. I can't tell half the time if someone's talking to me or is talking on the phone. (Those with ear pieces). It has become so impersonal.
Go outside and gab andndash; not in a restaurant, or where people are shopping. Sit in your car and talk. And thank you- to those who stop for us and wave and are smiling .
Speedy Ede Viale
Hard earned victory, but at what cost?
The article in the (Pilot) Saturday, July 31, 2010, regarding Emerald Coast Estates was only partially correct.
Gary and Sharon Davis won the initial eviction hearing. Many residents of Emerald Coast Estates sat through a two-day trial supporting their right to display a for sale sign that could be seen from the street. The Itzen family decided to appeal the initial court ruling in favor of the Davises and lost (again) in Appellate court.
The initial ruling stated that Oregon law supercedes Tenant Law in that any homeowner can display a for sale sign in or about the home.
It was very unfortunate that this case ever came to trial. The Davises spent over $15,000 to pursue their legal right to advertise their home. They are both disabled and on a limited income.
Yes, it was a hard earned victory, but at what cost? The reputation of the park will be forever sullied by this senseless action.
Virginia Link, former resident
Emerald Coast Estates
Facts about original Black Panther Party
I usually don't write in response to another reader's letter, but after reading a recent letter to the Pilot that seemed to give some legitimacy to the original Black Panther Party, I felt compelled to respond.
Having worked as a law enforcement officer in Oakland during the 1960s, '70s and '80s, I know that the original Panthers were criminals who hated the white establishment. They called us pigs and honkies then.
In 1967, Huey P. Newton, a Panther founder, shot and killed Oakland Police Officer John Frey during a traffic stop in West Oakland. Frey left a wife and young daughter. Several years later, Newton was murdered by a drug dealer in West Oakland.
Later in that same time period, Eldridge Cleaver (another Panther founder) and Bobby Hutton, a young Panther recruit, ambushed and wounded two Oakland officers as they were patrolling. Hutton was killed later that night in a shootout with police.
For a brief period, the Panthers were providing free meals for black children, but the meals were funded in part with money raised in the black business community through threats and intimidation.
The original Panthers self-destructed. I hope the new Panthers do the same.
Nothing clear in letter about Brock
A recent editorial from Mr Ted Burdett (Pilot, July 27) did anything BUT " get a few things out in the clear."
He seems to be attempting some type of defense for a "Treasurer Izzy Brock." He says "let's take a look at the issues," but he never does it. Instead, he mounts an attack on a Mr. Waddle, a Mr Rhodes, and a Mr. Colozzi. He wastes valuable time and space attempting to link sexual harassment charges, interpretation of laws, construction permits, elitism, and the importance of college degrees to form a defense of the alleged malfeasance of the county treasurer.
If he wishes to attempt to defend he might start with listing the charges and then answering them in some sort of order. Casting aspersions and innuendos only muddies the waters and weakens his position. He states that Mr. Colozzi wipes Mr Waddle's nose, but would he like anyone to suggest what it is he might be doing for Treasurer Brock?
He states that no less than five counties in Oregon use the same treasury practices. Are there only five counties in Oregon? What do the other counties do? Are they wrong and the five right? or vice versa?
What does the competency of 99 percent of the people of Curry County have to do with anything? And on, and on, and on. ...
Congratulations Mr. Burdett, on being selected the Oregon Teacher of the Year by the Oregon Veterans of Foreign Wars ... but what does that have to do with Treasurer Brock?
Time to rethink law levy proposal
With Curry County commissioners and the sheriff pressing forward with plans to place a law property tax levy on the November ballot, a rethink probably is necessary.
As written, the proposed measure would tax every property holder at the same rate, regardless of whether or not they live in a city which already has police. In the April 28, 2010, Pilot, the report of the Brookings City Council questioning the sheriff about why property owners in Brookings should be double taxed, the sheriff reportedly stated that Oregon law does not permit a variable tax rate. The same article reported the proposed levy rate to be $2.27 per $1,000 of assessed value, a substantial tax increase. I wrote to the city council asking that they verify the truth of the sheriff's statement. The sheriff also reportedly said that the only cost difference between, for example, Brookings, and areas with no police is the sheriff's patrol. In the September 12, 2009, Pilot, it was reported that the county Advanced Strategy Group had recommended that the levy rate begin at $1.99 per $1,000 and increase to $4.24 by 2020, certainly a great increase in addition to the original increase.
That same article also stated that among others Commissioner Nowlin wanted 24/7 sheriff's patrolling, an increase, and that a contingency fund was to be established when people already may have problems paying higher tax bills. With regard to the double taxation issue, in light of the sheriff's statement about Oregon law it would appear that a solution could be to propose two tax levies with two ballot proposals, one to cover that portion of the sheriff's budget which applies to services needed by all county residents, and another for areas which have no police, to pay the cost of sheriff's patrols.
As is, it appears that county tax levy people regard cities already having police as cash cows with much assessed property value as sources to pay for sheriff's patrolling which those cities do not need.