 |
July 2008 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Letters to the Editor |
|
|
Friday, 09 May 2008 |
Are we being served or serviced by MLPD?
As a concerned citizen and taxpayer, the recent debate over the Animal Control Officer position and the Town Citizen Committee has had me reflecting on my most recent interactions with MLPD, both at work and in my private life, as well as anecdotes that were shared with me by other concerned citizens regarding their experiences with MLPD.
The experiences I have had have left me feeling more victimized than the incidents themselves, with the feeling that MLPD will railroad people on victimless crimes and ignore real victims and their rights in an effort to keep arrest numbers acceptable, yet lower statistics on real crime in our community.
I have witnessed an experienced MLPD officer tell the victim of a violent assault that was potentially fatal, “Look, he was emotional and I’m not going to take an assault report on this. Why don’t you go apologize to [the perpetrator] and this can all go away? I’ve got more important things to do. There’s a possible gas leak in town.” Aren’t possible gas leaks a Fire Department issue? And who made this guy a judge?
How about a long-time town citizen who had a few drinks out with friends? This person decided that they ought not to drive, so they decided to sleep in their truck until morning. MLPD decided that they would arrest that person for DUI, seeing as they were in possession of a set of keys for the vehicle. That citizen learned a valuable lesson that night, “You’re better off driving home than you are trying to do the right thing. The police will arrest you for trying to do what’s right, so you may as well take your chances.” Apparently, MLPD is tough on people trying to do the right thing.
How about home burglary? A resident’s home is burglarized. His computer and paper files, including all evidence in an upcoming lawsuit, are stolen, along with many of the victim’s worldly possessions, totaling several thousand dollars. The neighbors confirm the identity of the perpetrators. MLPD consults with the attorney of the perpetrators and they decide that “if most of the property is returned, we’ll just call this a mistake. I am not going to write this as a criminal report.” I guess if the police department doesn’t report it, then no crime has been committed in our town. Right?
As much as I would like to continue, pending lawsuits and court cases prevent me from elaborating on any of the other MLPD indiscretions that I am aware of. As time goes by, I hope to be able to share them with you also.
My Proposal: It’s quite simple and to the point. Yes, we need a citizen’s community committee! But not for animal control. Hire Steve Searles as our full-time “Animal Control Officer,” start a community oversight committee to oversee police conduct (police commission) and perhaps terminate the police chief. Of course, the Town Council would never do this, so I’m thinking this proposal should become a ballot measure.
Please comment to:
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Chris Hedlund
Mammoth Lakes, CA.
Calling all Mammoth residents
On Tuesday, May 13, in Suite Z, from 5–8 p.m., there will be a Planning Commission Meeting to gather public input for the Hidden Creek Crossing, a.k.a. Shady Rest tract, to begin the process of a Neighborhood District Plan (NDP).
At this time, the Master Plan allows 172 units, with a maximum height of 35 feet. The proponent is anticipated to ask for a total of 405 affordable housing units, with heights ranging from 35-65 feet. To do this, the proponent needs to amend the Master Plan.
To begin this process, the proponent is required to bring it before the people, to let them voice their concerns, issues, or support of the proposed project as it relates to density, height, trails, public safety, traffic and parks. A consultant from Wallace, Robert and Todd (WRT), a San Diego based firm will attend the public hearings to collect and collate the information. At this time, the proponent has not submitted a proposal.
If there are allot of people who wish to comment, there may be additional workshops scheduled for the public to attend. Once all the information is collected, it will be used to make up the new Master Plan. Before the new Master Plan can be presented to the Planning Commission, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will need to be done — an eight-month process.
Once District Planning is complete, the proponent will draft a development proposal that is presented to the Community Development Department for review. At that time, everyone within 300 feet of Hidden Creek Crossing will receive a notice regarding the project and subsequent Planning Commission meeting. After the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal, recommendations will be provided to Town Council, and once again, everyone within 300 feet of the project will receive a Town Council meeting notice. Town Council will then make a decision on the project, based on extensive public input.
As you can see, this is not an “overnight” process. The critical element in this process is public engagement, participation, and input.
It is now time for the residents of Mammoth Lakes to step up to the plate, get involved and be part of Mammoth’s future, not past, and listen to both sides of the issue.
For further information on this project, or the many District Plans being considered or in process, contact Town of Mammoth Lakes, Assistant Planner, Jen Daugherty at (760) 934-8989, ext. 260.
Leigh Gaasch
Mammoth Lakes, CA
More on Humboldt-Toiyabe
In the [April 3, 2008 edition of the Mammoth Times], you quoted Cheryl Probert, District Ranger of the Bridgeport Ranger District as follows: "According to Probert, a recent meeting brought an unprecedented 400 'out of the woodwork to help draft the legislation,' and also saw drastically increased cooperation among previously adversarial environmental groups."
I don't know which meeting Ms. Probert was speaking of, but it wasn't either of the two I attended. The residents of Smith Valley and the newly organized Coalition for Public Access came out in UNANIMOUS opposition at a meeting on March 5, with more than 450 people, and again at a meeting held in Smith Valley April 2, with more than 750 in attendance. There was NEVER an intention expressed by the public to "help draft" any legislation that threatens to restrict access to the areas of wilderness identified for the proposed lands bills for Lyon and Mineral counties in Nevada. Either you got your quote wrong or Ms. Probert was dreaming. The number one question asked was, "What part of NO WILDERNESS don't you understand?" If that means the public is "helping," it only means they're standing up for and helping themselves, not the legislation.
Sue Silver
Hawthorne, Nev.
Editor's note: In order to print as many letters as possible, please limit the length of your letters to 500 words maximum. Please include your real name and physical address and type your submission. If you are submitting a letter to the editor through our Web site, please be sure to include name and physical address, or we will be unable to print. Deadline is Fridays at 3 p.m. –MT
|
|
Last Updated ( Thursday, 15 May 2008 )
|
|
|
|
