Vote! 

[
    
      {
        "name": "Top Stories Video Pair",
        "insertPoint": "7",
        "component": "17087298",
        "parentWrapperClass": "fdn-ads-inline-content-block",
        "requiredCountToDisplay": "1"
      }
    
    ]

Editor:

Yes on Measure A. It goes the next step to protect the environment and grant neighbors within 1 mile (rather than 300 feet) voice in permitting and regulatory processes.

Humboldt County Growers Alliance tried getting Measure A removed from the ballot. Judge Canning's decision against HCGA: "The initiative or referendum is one of the most precious rights of our democratic process."

Measure A included case-study analysis of agencies and public comments in the EIR ignored by planning department. Nearly 200 interviews were conducted with organizations, businesses, cannabis farmers, agencies, citizens and HCGA executive director who became too busy fighting taxes to communicate. A highly consultative process.

Hoopa Valley Tribe writes in support: "We sincerely appreciate the goals to reduce the overall cannabis footprint, promote healthy environments and rural communities, ensure public involvement in future decision-making processes and continue to transition the industry away from industrial mega-grows to small-scale, environmentally-minded cannabis farms."

Ann Alter, Kneeland

Editor:

If you don't care about saving Humboldt by voting no on Measure A, then perhaps you will care enough about saving fish by voting no on Measure A. I find it particularly disturbing an educated, HSU professor would couch the proposed initiative as protective of the environment. Roads are the No. 1 contributor to sediment to our local rivers and streams. Sedimentation is considered by many scientists as the worst form of pollution to stream systems. Measure A would increase sedimentation by requiring new licenses, and existing licensees who are seeking to permit ancillary structures, to widen their property access road(s) to 20 feet. Let's be clear, there are sections of State Route 96 that are less than 20 feet wide. The lack of consideration of the effects of land disturbance, tree removal, bare soil and sedimentation to waterways (which may have salmonid populations) is dumbfounding.

Carla Spreen, Kneeland

Editor:

I will be voting yes on Measure A. I have been observing the growth of and impacts from what we called "homegrown," since 1974 when I got kicked out of the dorms at HSU for smoking pot. It became huge in Humboldt because you could grow it here and hide it from the cops.

A lot of people made a lot of money. But, it had its downside, too; home invasions, guns everywhere, the layabout scene in Arcata, the high incidents of domestic violence, addiction and other socials ills.

After legalization, the regulators were way too cozy with the industrialists, and short shrift was given to steps that could have ameliorated some of the massive environmental harm that came from the grow industry.

It's time to restore some balance between protecting Humboldt's streams, plants, animals, and quality living, and the needs of the capitalists. Vote yes on Measure A.

Bryce Kenny, Trinidad

Editor:

My 4,600-square-foot cannabis farm is out 36 on Buck Mountain on an 80-acre parcel that has been in my family for 111 years.

In the past 11 years since we began cultivating on our land, we have cleaned up truckloads of debris from previous trespass grows, and have used our proceeds to bring abandoned parcels back to their pre-cultivation glory. We've repaired roads that had deteriorated from pre-regulated cultivation (and old logging) that were discharging sediment into our river systems. Like many of the cultivators who are left now that the "green rush" is over, we are good stewards of our mountain home where we grow, share and store our own food, and it's cannabis that makes it possible for us to do that.

If Measure A passes, this will no longer be a viable option for us and those roads will likely go back to deteriorating. Please vote no on Measure A!

Polly Kinsinger, Fortuna

Editor:

Measure A is endorsed by the Hoopa Valley Tribe, particularly supportive stopping further "mega-grows" and capping future acreage and permits. Although Friends of the Eel River can neither support nor oppose Measure A, it speaks positively about Measure A in that: "The initiative offers several ways to improve cannabis cultivation regulations by bolstering existing regulations on cannabis operations to further reduce environmental impacts, imposing new caps on the number of grows, and limiting cultivation area." Measure A also is endorsed by the Redwood Region Audubon Society, by Friends of Elk River and by Salmon Forever. Although some environmental groups may be compelled to take no stand on Measure A, given their financial ties with the cannabis industry, the support of these groups rings true to the fact that the environment becomes a victim of our enterprises, unable to defend itself and requiring our help, regardless of financial interests. Please vote yes on Measure A.

Mark Thurmond, Kneeland

Editor:

I'm writing today regarding the Humboldt County Cannabis Reform Initiative, Measure A. I support Humboldt County cannabis farmers, especially small farmers, and stand in opposition to Measure A.

Measure A will disadvantage Humboldt County cannabis farmers, especially small farmers, in the statewide marketplace. If Measure A were a statewide initiative, leveling the playing field for cannabis farmers statewide, I would reconsider my position, but to further disadvantage Humboldt County farmers is unacceptable.

Cannabis is already the single most regulated agricultural endeavor ever. Measure A is overburdensome and unnecessary regulation.

I am also concerned about the divide Measure A is causing in our community. The proponents and Humboldt County farmers are our friends and neighbors. After the vote, I hope we can all remember that what we all want is a more resilient sustainable community.

I encourage you to join me in voting no on Measure A.

Nate Madsen, Petrolia

Editor:

The historical back to the land, live and thrive with nature movement in the late '60s to '70s in Humboldt actually and somewhat innocently struck gold. It has, since being made legal, morphed into an industry that is anything but a friend to nature!

I absolutely love Humboldt!! I support yes on A. I beg voters to do their "due diligence" regarding Measure A at: cannabisinitiative.org. People like Natalia Nelson are believing the lies from the opposition ... yay capitalism, right?

Kathryn Travers, Eureka

Editor:

Natalia Nelson's letter of Feb. 8 repeats the arguments against Measure A that have already been debunked. It's obvious she has not read the initiative. The state defines small grows as less than 10,000 square feet, so a grower who wants to expand beyond that limit would no longer be a small farmer.

The initiative would increase public participation by requiring the county to hold the annual hearings that are mandated by Resolution 18-43. In six years there have been none. The public has been left out of decision making.

Solar/water storage would be encouraged, not prevented. Water storage must be increased if not adequate and solar, which may become necessary when generators are phased out, fulfills the environmental purposes of Measure A. If you doubt this, read the initiative.

Stopping illegal grows is not the responsibility of the public. Perhaps Ms. Nelson should contact the sheriff with her concerns.

Diane Higgins, McKinleyville

Editor:

Congratulations to Frankie Myers and all who worked on dam removal, with the opening of Copco dam the Klamath flows free! Reading last year's NCJ article on efforts for dam removal I was impressed with their approach. Instead of the usual "see you in court" challenge, the approach, led by Vice Chair Myers, was to invite the opposing corporate executives here to consider the problems. The result? Approval of dam removal.

The goal of this long, dedicated effort is revival of the salmon fishery! Since the "fish farm" will raise Yellow Fin Tuna, a huge market awaits the salmon, with increases in sport fishing tourism.

Frankie Myers was raised and educated here. He knows the challenges we face, and he has rural and environmental values now epitomizing our area.

We all see the failures of adversarial politics. It's time for new leadership. Vote for Frankie Myers for Assembly!

Margaret P. Dickinson, Eureka

Editor:

I agree with letter writer Amy Gustin who has pointed out Representative Jared Huffman's support for corporate interests and the military-industrial complex (Mailbox, Feb. 8). Not only is Huffman failing those of us who are in his district, he is failing humanity by refusing to join in the calls for a ceasefire. Even if Huffman personally has no compassion for the people of Palestine, he must realize that if Congress delivered a call for a ceasefire, President Biden would be compelled to heed the will of the majority of Americans (giving Biden much needed cover to reverse his position of unconditional support for Israel and perhaps halting his plummeting poll numbers).

I will be joining Amy in rejecting Huffman's candidacy, but rather than voting for anyone else, I will vote for the only candidate on the ballot who supports a ceasefire. I am voting for Jolian Kangas and I hope you will, too. 

Sheila Evans, Eureka

Editor:

This March 5, we're supporting Gordon Clatworthy for supervisor.

Clatworthy's advocacy for progressive change is greatly needed.

For example, all large developments merit independent assessment of long-term public costs, benefits and alternatives prior to approval, (as seen in Cal Poly Humboldt's study of offshore wind energy), funded by project applicants.

Additionally, public benefit agreements would ensure local access to the energy, products, jobs or services being proposed.

Clatworthy's opponent advocated for massive LNG storage on our bay; exports of pulp, coal, gravel and wood-pellet production; sprawl overwhelming city streets and sewers; and headwater developments lacking water carrying-capacity certification, consistently neglecting outreach to those qualified in calculating complex impacts on health and safety, the environment, climate, the economy and future employment, (AKA: due-diligence).

Humboldt's "trickle-down economic" legacy of blindly approving the whims of influential individuals and industries has been disastrous and could take decades to reverse, time we may not have.

George Clark, Eureka

Editor:

Dear Mr. Rusty Hicks: Do. Not. Send. Robotexts.

Who thought this was a great idea? Do you, or anyone you know, respond to robotexts positively? Didn't think so.

I did not sign up for your list, and those on budget phone plans may have to pay for your nonsense.

You may be supported by everyone and their dog; you may have enlightened views on this and that; but for privacy issues, Mr. CR Associate Professor, you get an F.

Elsinore Mihalis, Eureka

Editor:

Weaponizing investigations as a smear campaign in politics is nothing new. From communists in the state department to Bengazi to Hunter Biden's laptop, allegations lacking proof can be used to assassinate a public official's character.

Judge Greg Kreis' endorsements from all corners of the Humboldt County establishment and throughout the legal community are a testament to his character from people who have known and worked with him. Greg was also well vetted before his appointment by the governor.

Shouldn't we give Judge Kreis the same presumption of innocence we would want if we found ourselves before him in court?

Richard Salzman, Arcata

Editor:

In the last decade, we've all seen our political culture shifting toward overt intimidation and sometimes threats of violence. 

This is why I was concerned when I recently saw supervisorial candidate Roy Gomez' website; on the site, he lists seven leaders and activists from the community as "people to watch" because they are "anarcho-communists" coming after our freedoms.

While I believe criticism of elected officials and others who hold positions of authority is an essential component of democracy, the tactic of "outing" local individuals using such terms as "anarcho-communists" does not make our community any smarter or safer. It's intended to divide.  

Please, for the safety and dignity of our leaders, for the betterment of our continuing conversations around democracy don't support Roy Gomez and his divisive inflammatory language. 

Geoffrey Robinson, Blue Lake