Committed to no-kill
“In 2012, over one new community (in USA) per week achieved a save rate of at least 90 percent, and as high as 99 percent. The No-Kill revolution is ON THE MARCH as written by Nathan Winograd, the leader of the No-Kill movement. These are the most recent posted statistics as reported on the Ventura County Animal Services website, 2011-2012 statistics. Thirty-one percent of dogs and 62 percent of cats impounded were “humanely euthanized”.
A no-kill focused new director (a real leader) will implement actual solutions to the currently repeated Ventura County Animal Services excuse for killing (euthanizing) so many dogs and cats: “too many dogs and cats being impounded and not enough kennels to house them.” Adopting the Nathan Winograd no-kill philosophy and, most importantly, developing in-depth programs for each of the 10 steps that will keep all healthy, treatable, rehabitable dogs and cats from ending up on the dreaded VCAS euthanasia list. Annually, $5.1 million of taxpayer dollars supports the current VCAS operation. I look forward to hearing about the elimination of the huge amounts of taxpayer dollars being spent on costs related to the euthanasia of large quantities of dogs and cats, and the disposal of their dead bodies has been eliminated by the following: The 11 steps of the no-kill philosophy (requires implementation as an entire package): 1 .A compassionate director focused on saving lives 2. Feral cat trap-neuter-release program 3. High-volume, low-cost spay/neuter programs 4. Working with rescue groups 5. Foster care programs 6. Comprehensive adoption programs 7. Pet retention programs (helping people keep pets) 8. Medical and behavior programs 9. Good public relations and community involvement 10. Volunteer programs 11. Proactive redemptions
The First Amendment of Facebook
I feel compelled to respond to Mike Gibson’s letter regarding Facebook (May 23) and the First Amendment. It appears as if he has the concept backwards.
Our founding forefathers wrote our Constitution so we would not again suffer tyranny. If you disagreed with the King, heads would roll.
Years later, our First Amendment continues to be vital for our free society as it allows us, the people, to speak our minds without fear and, yes, even be critical of elected or appointed public officials.
The First Amendment allows us to enjoy freedom of speech, just like writing a spiffy letter to an editor (uh-hem) without worry of beheading. (Whew!) Because of this great amendment, we enjoy a free press. We can say whatever we feel, even on social media, regardless of whether or not it may haunt us. Twitter away. Yet, however you dice it, the First Amendment protects free speech regarding public officials.
Washington was called a murderer; Jefferson, a knave and insane; Henry Clay, a pimp; Andrew Jackson, an adulterer; Andrew Johnson and Ulysses S. Grant were called drunkards; Lincoln was called a half-witted baboon and a ghoul; Roosevelt, a traitor; Eisenhower was charged with being an agent of the communist conspiracy. (Cited from Desert Sun v. Superior Court 1979 ruling)
Bad taste? Probably! An American tradition and protected speech? — Yes.
Our First Amendment was not set up to protect a public official’s Facebook information (of any party) from being discussed. Political discussion of public officials that serve the people is a constitutionally protected right and one of our proudest and most valued American traditions.
Thank you, First Amendment — we have not forgotten your greatness due to the clamor over No. 2. Please let Mike know — we’re pretty sure the founding forefathers were on Myspace anyway.
Gas is good
This letter is in response to an article by Kimberly Rivers in the May 30 issue on oil and gas in Ventura County. Although the article attempts to show both sides of the story, there is a strong negative basis to the energy industry and its practices. She begins her story with a statement that “one quart of motor oil can contaminate 250,000 gallons of drinking water,” and then states that there have been 868 reported spills (of something) in the past 19 years in Ventura County. That works out to be 45.7 small spills a year, an astoundingly small number for an industry that, in 2012, produced over 452 million gallons of oil from 2,834 active wells. I think the industry should be given an award not regulation to control a problem that does not exist. Fracking: a bad word that fills the public with fear. This technique has been successfully used to make low-producing wells into economic producers, creating wealth and jobs in the county for over 60 years. Fracturing began in the 1860s in New York and Pennsylvania, with the first successful hydro fracking treatment done in 1949. The process reached over 3,000 wells per month in Oklahoma by the mid-1950s. Water was first used as a fracture fluid in 1953. The process was used extensively in the Sespe Oil field above Fillmore in the early 1980s. Since hydraulic fracturing was successfully introduced in 1949, close to 2.5 million fracture treatments have been performed worldwide (http://www.spe.org/jpt/print/ archives/2010/12/10Hydraulic.pdf). If there was a significant problem with this method, don’t you think it would have shown up by now? Even Lisa Jackson, President Obama’s EPA Administrator, has stated, “I’m not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water.” (5/24/11) I hope legislators like State Sen. Hanna-Beth Jackson learn to do a better job of researching and listening before proposing legislation that will kill jobs, hurt the poor with higher energy costs and contribute to additional greenhouse gas emissions because clean-burning natural gas produced by fracture stimulation is restricted by unnecessary regulation. The California State Division of Oil and Gas does a great job of regulating the industry and protecting public safety.
People in the oil and gas industry have families and want to drink clean water and breathe clean air just like people in the rest of the county. When I worked in the energy industry, we did everything we could to work safely and protect the environment, and I hate to see these efforts vilified by others that know little about the industry and are unwilling to do the proper research.
Lack of memory recall
Re: “It’s the ’70s all over again,” Right Persuasion, 5/30
To the light and airy, for the serious, Paul Moomjean now adds the “bouncy,” an insinuation that he knows all about the ’70s when he wasn’t born until the ’80s! Doesn’t this point to the portentous in much of his writing?
The affordable housing flop
Accessory housing is fine.
“Low income housing,” as recently exhibited in Ventura, is rapidly becoming an abherrant form of cancer on the overall community – as has already occurred in Santa Paula.
The WAV (financial joke of the century – 27 parking spaces – no retail unit rented to date – no landscaping – a noise pit nobody would ever invest in – not one condo sold – I predicted all of this when I was on DRC – but the local architecture/planning establishment wanted to hear nothing about that) 1400 N. Ventura Ave. (developer’s dream/ financial nightmare); the building next to the former Greyhound Station (another developer’s dream/financial nightmare); the proposed project next to the Sidecar (reinvented five times so far).
These buildings are built on the backs of the taxpayers, will never be paid off and are a convenient method for getting projects which otherwise do not pencil out – built. They also become a financially cancerous infestation on the housing supply in the city.
“Live/work” has become a national joke. Is there one “live/work” project in the city of Ventura which has done anything to “activate” the street? I think not. Allow the “accessory housing” concept to evolve.
Santa Paula is rapidly becoming a collection of these “low income” projects which do little for the community and much for the developer.
Suggestion: Merging the planning people with the DRC was a device to allow planning to run over any and all meaningful discussion of aesthetic issues within the city. There is no meaningful code enforcement of illegal signage and they continue to proliferate.
The city of Santa Barbara did not always look “good.” It was a process. If Bakersfield-by-the Sea is what the City Council is after, well, you are certainly on course.