No reason for it

I wish to respond to the article regarding the proposed resolution of making Brookings an “all inclusive city” (Pilot, Oct. 11). In my opinion, it already is, and there is no reason to pass a resolution to make it so.

I’ve had numerous dealings with Ms. Michael during my 10 years as a resident and respect what she has contributed to the community. However, I do feel that she is way off base on this issue.

It seems to me that she is violating the very proposal she is advocating. She is being divisive; using race and gender politics and not promoting kindness.

She seems to assume that having this resolution approved by the city counsel would have somehow prevented the breaking of the window at the Democrat Headquarters or stopped the breaking of windows of a car because it had an Obama sticker on it! Come on, get real!

Look no further than Portland to see what being “all inclusive” has brought them! People can call the POTUS a racist, Nazi and bigot but someone doesn’t have the right to say the “n” word or express their views in a public place. I guess they believe that freedom of speech applies only to the speech and actions they approve.

I also believe in the rule of law. I don’t feel that a city, county or state can pick and choose which laws they chose to enforce. There is the “law of the land” and like it or not, it is the law. If we don’t have laws, chaos and anarchy is the result.

I think that Ms. Michel and the Indivisible 97415 group are still upset that Donald Trump won the election and their candidate lost. Instead of trying to regroup and come up with programs, they just want to “resist” and block and programs of the Republican Party.

Allan W. Stewart


A welcoming idea

Might I suggest a different title for the article, written by Jane Stebbins: “Brookings City Council shoots down naming Brookings as a Welcoming and Inclusive City.”

That is what the criticism is about. We all love Brookings, else why would we live here? When the resolution was first submitted by Councilman Triglia, I spoke in favor of it. I saw it as an opportunity to highlight what a welcoming and inclusive city Brookings can be.

I suggested that it would be attractive to be so named given upcoming ventures to other cities in an effort to promote Brookings.

Instead, what happened at the last city council meeting was the mayor and three of the four councilmen chose to not even let the resolution come to a vote, citing it as unnecessary.

We can argue about how inclusive Brookings is perceived or not; that was not the intent of the resolution discussion. Instead it was an opportunity for aspiration, to name the city as welcoming and inclusive; a name we can live up to, or not.

The intent behind the resolution is goodwill. Instead we have what will end up being divisive. It doesn’t have to be that way. Civil Discourse is at the heart of Indivisible 97415; let’s engage in highlighting what makes us Brookings and work to make it even better.

Also, it would be helpful if the Pilot would print the resolution in its entirety; people can then look at a primary source and make up their own minds.

Maria Sudduth

Indivisible 97415


City won’t be bullied

I’m writing to thank the city council for having the necessary clarity and spine to reject Councilor Dennis Triglia’s resolution regarding “Brookings and inclusiveness.”

I’m weary of the destructiveness of such classic, boring, divisive and guilt-laden playbook rhetoric, supported by Indivisible Member Candice Michel. To assert that Brookings and its people are not inclusive is absurd.

I also am offended by her demeaning non-inclusive comment regarding “white men.” Thank you city council for not being bullied into “progressive ideology” to use city services and funding to support non-citizens, including the suggestion to disregard federal immigration laws.

The citizens of Brookings are well aware of our lean budget, but that’s not the point. Forcing taxpayers to support non-citizens is not charity! Charity is an individual’s decision and comes from the heart. I’m also glad the “in your face politics” regarding sanctuary city status did not slither past the filters of our council.

In a nutshell, Brookings is my sanctuary from such political cancer.

Thank you.

Lance Buckley


The city got it Right

The city council got it right when it decided not to pass a resolution calling Brookings a welcoming and inclusive city that respects all its citizens. It’s not and it doesn’t.

I was told when I moved here about two years ago that “We take our Second Amendment seriously here” and “We like California money but we don’t like Californians in our town.” My welcoming message? Veiled threats saying “We don’t want you or your kind here.” I can’t repeat what I was called when I held a Hillary for President sign at the corner of Oak Street and Chetco Avenue. I was pushed, threatened, vehicles deliberately swerved toward me, and I was screamed at by drivers. The First Amendment is clearly not valued here as much as the Second is.

So I was heartened when I heard of Councilor Triglia’s resolution calling Brookings a welcoming and inclusive community, and was at the Sept. 25 meeting. But council members refused even to give the resolution an up or down vote. Why? They said they didn’t want to appear political. They didn’t want to look too liberal in a conservative town. I’ve heard Californians who come to Brookings leave within a couple of years because of the weather. It’s not the weather. It’s the small-town suspicion and wariness, ugliness and fear. So kudos to the city council for its non-vote!

Brookings is not a safe, welcoming community for all its residents. Why pretend it is?

Lori Gallo-Stoddard


A veiled attempt

Thanks to the Brookings City Council for rejecting the “Welcome and Inclusive Community” resolution.

The council realized that the proposed resolution was a veiled attempt to make Brookings a sanctuary for illegal aliens. The resolution, for the most part, sounded warm, fuzzy and inviting, but kindness, understanding and acceptance are not mandated by resolution, they come from the mind and heart.

To the person (Ms. Michel) who doesn’t like the gender and racial makeup of the city council, I suggest that you run for a seat and I will be sure not to vote for you.

James Brock