Protecting our Kids Neighborhood by Ordinance
I read an article in the newspaper that the state of California was going to can most rules regarding sex offenders. This is a blow to the state. Our state is making our kids be cozy with sex offenders with the new rules. Almost daily you can pick up any paper and someone has been arrested, charged with, or sentenced for some type of molestation to a woman, to a girl or to a child. And it is in our community along with many others. I think it is time for the County of Lake to make their own personal ordinance to protect our school kids, our parks, and our county as a whole with our own rules and regulations by ordinance to protect our kids. If someone has better ideas, I would be more than happy to hear them. Because I think this is a major problem and can get totally out of hand instantly. You will not know where they are, where they live, how close they are to our schools or even the house next door. This is a problem that can get totally out of hand and make it totally uncontrollable. I believe we could work on a county ordinance with input form the powers to be, school boards, teachers, PTA, and all local parents input.
This is a very, very important thing for all of us.
Ron Rose, Lakeport
Adding up
OK — so the City of Clearlake has to come up with 467 new homes by 2019, as required by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, a State of California Department.
How is the City of Clearlake going to cut their water usage by the 25 percent Governor Jerry Brown wants if they have to provide 467 additional housing units?
Norman Michael, Lakeport
Labeling GMOs
Thirty-five years ago, I was driving my son to his Little League game in Santa Rosa. We had to drive down a dirt road and we passed a corn field. The corn looked very different from those in our garden, so I stopped on the way home to look at the crop.
Holy, moly! These stalks were chalked full of corn, with little foliage. Mine were bursting with foliage, but not nearly as many stalks.
An old man came out. He was from Italy it turned out, and well into his nineties. He was a very tickled that I stopped to ask him about his corn. It turns out that he saved his beloved seeds and replanted them. We had come from L.A. and had no “heirloom” seeds, and planted what the big seed companies had to sell. This was an eye-opener.
However, not content to monopolize the seeds and supply an inferior product to the public, “Big Ag” decided to genetically modify the crops, like corn.
So, why does “Big Ag” (Monsanto) use GMOs? One of the major arguments in favor of GMOs is that they will be instrumental in ending world hunger, by increasing production of crops. The problem with this argument is, as Frances Moore Lappe points out in her book “World Hunger, 12 Myths,” is that starvation is a function of distribution, not scarcity.
There are some grave concerns. One of them is that B1 toxin used in the GMOs has been turning up in pregnant women. Twenty-six countries have banned GMOs. Notice, I wrote “banned.” Here in the United States, the battle is not to ban, but merely to label foods that use them. If we are going to play the “caveat emptor” (let the buyer beware) game, at least let us know what we are buying.
Leading the battle here to encourage labeling is the Lake County Democratic Party, which has made a decision to support the “labeling” bills sponsored by U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer and, Representative Peter de Fazio in the House.
Researching GMOs on the internet leaves one with a lot of questions. Eating these foods, I think you would conclude, at best leaves our safety in question. Do we want to roll the dice with the lives of ourselves and our progeny? The very least we should do is label the foods and let people have the power to choose to take that risk or not.
Nelson Strasser, Lakeport
Lake County water
I appreciated Mr. Hall’s note the other day concerning the lake. He had some good thoughts. My biggest problem, though, was that it caused me to realize how little I know about Lake County’s (whole) water situation. From observation I know about the weeds, the much maligned creeks, the problems Lucerne residents have, waste water going to the Geysers, and so on.
But I don’t know much about “who owns what,” who has what kind of individual rights, and the sorts of things that will become very important when the new use restrictions become in force and enforced. For example: What are the rights and responsibilities of those who have lake front properties? Do they own “part of the lake” because of property lines, and if so, are they responsible for maintaining the shore line to the extent of their property? What are public access rights?
A seasonal creek crosses my property and I try to keep it clear and open when it runs. I’ve seen pictures of the drying Hitch caught in years past, but no more I suspect it is m re than “just” a water problem because of the mismanaged portions (of Scotts Creek) I have seen. Is it the owner’s responsibility? And who has the right to draw water from the creeks when they are running? I would like to dig in a large tank and fill it when Poole Creek is full, drawing on it during summer months. Otherwise the water flows directly to the lake. Is that my right?
I know Clear Lake will never be the kind of lake as are the Blue Lakes, but we surely can make it far better a “people place” than it is now even if the upgrading (to a better people place) does some damage to its being a “bass lake”.
Guff Worth, Lakeport
