Former Marin supervisor supports ranch workers
As a retired Marin supervisor, I was stunned to read about environmental organizations working with the National Park Service in hopes of removing agricultural operations (and the vulnerable ranch workers living there) from Point Reyes National Seashore (“Point Reyes park litigants want residents excluded from talks,” Nov. 14).
Performing closed-door negotiations to determine the fate of ranch workers is unfair.
In 1971, my first job for the county was as aide to Gary Giacomini when he first became District 4 supervisor. That district included West Marin. The first thing on our plate was to find out what ranchers needed. There was a terrible drought then and we helped supply needed water. They became great friends. The friendship and appreciation between the supervisors and the ranchers has been constant since then.
My family lived in West Marin for 13 years before moving to Novato. I now live in Southern California near some of my family. All my children have West Marin roots. They went to school there.
I have fond memories of my 16 years as supervisor. One thing I know, when there is a big issue that touches everyone, yet the public has no say in what is happening behind closed doors, it is to the detriment of Marin.
Remember, our country is run by its people. Make your voice heard, send letters and let your supervisors, state Sen. Mike McGuire and Rep. Jared Huffman know that helping to keep a long tradition of ranching viable is important. It is part of who you are as Marin residents.
Thank you to attorney Andrew Giacomini for helping ranch workers as they try to get a seat at the table. As Gary’s son, he is working hard on this issue, like his dad did in 1971 and thereafter.
— Judy Arnold, Westlake Village
Throttled e-bikes should require license, insurance
It is clear that the clueless parents buying the throttled “pocket rocket” electric-assist bikes for their adolescents have not considered all of the personal ramifications of such a purchase.
First of all, they are depriving their kids of the fitness benefits of riding a regular bicycle. Considering our epidemic of childhood obesity, parents may be dooming their offspring to a lifetime of cardiovascular disease and cancer.
Secondly, throttled e-bikes raise the risk of serious injury. Some riders have even landed in the Emergency Room with severe brain injuries. I think the statistics for motorcycle accidents should slow parents considering one of these so-called “electric motorcycles.”
Finally, if a kid hits me while riding a throttled e-bike, I promise to retain the best personal injury attorney available. I will squeeze the parents out of every single nickel a judge will allow me for pain and suffering. In fact, I suggest parents price out umbrella insurance policies that cover personal injury lawsuits at the time of their e-bike purchase. I would even consider extending the lawsuit to the bike dealer that provided the dangerous vehicle.
Let’s treat these throttled e-bikes for what they really are: a motor vehicle that needs to be limited to licensed adult drivers with the state-required insurance.
— Michael Sillman, Larkspur
Marin should not need organizational consultant
I am writing in response to the IJ editorial published Nov. 18 with the headline, “Marin needs to get its $500K worth from organizational consultant.”
New Marin County Executive Derek Johnson wants to hire an “expert” consultant to evaluate the way the county does business and suggest improvements. My immediate thought was: Shouldn’t the county executive be an expert in doing just that? In my opinion, that’s the purpose of the position.
— Stephen Schmid, San Rafael
GOP of the past would not recognize this rebirth
In his recent commentary published in the IJ, CalMatters political columnist Dan Walters correctly points out that parity between the two major political parties in California vanished in the late 1990s and that Democrats have controlled the state ever since (“Democrats still dominate California, but their voters have drifted to the right,” Nov. 17).
While he suggests that there may now be a slight trend favoring Republicans in the Golden State, he fails to make a salient point: Not only has parity vanished, the Republican Party has vanished. The swing to the right, however tiny, cannot possibly represent a rebirth of the GOP as we knew it before the 1990s.
Rather than remain dedicated to specific ideas and values while communicating consistent platforms, the new version of the Republican Party rallies around one person, forgives sins that would have disqualified any of their former heroes from any office, and imagines all opposition to be traitorous.
The party of Pete Wilson and Ronald Reagan is gone; the branding has been sold to another company. If you need evidence, look no farther than the long list of old-school conservative Republicans who did not support President-elect Donald Trump this year. In many cases, they cases opposed him. Dick Cheney, of all people, endorsed a non-White woman Democrat from California.
If any candidate in 2024 had run on Reagan’s tax plan from the 1980s, or taken his stance against Russia, they would have been branded as a socialist enemy from within. I expect current and former Republicans would agree with this assessment, happily and unhappily, respectively.
— John Carroll, Woodacre
Trump’s strong Cabinet must have our support
When President Joe Biden recently welcomed back President-elect Donald Trump to the White House with a handshake and a warm smile, the vitriolic comments made against Trump by the Democrats dissipated like snowflakes on a warm day.
Trump and his Cabinet have an ambitious agenda for his second term. They include reworking a Department of Justice into something all Americans can trust in, eliminating bloated agencies and ineffective programs, securing our border and taking a serious look at what the food and drug industry is doing to our nation’s health. These are all issues that everyone without a vested interest can get behind, regardless of who you voted for.
Resistance to making these changes will come with stiff opposition. I believe that Trump has selected Cabinet members with backbone to achieve these goals. It is a long-standing tradition that Americans grant a honeymoon period to a newly inaugurated president, whether they voted for him or not. I hope that those of you who did not vote for Trump will grant him the opportunity to succeed, because a unified America is a stronger America.
— Henry Burgin, San Rafael
To succeed, United States needs less government
I am writing in response to the recently published Another View commentary by Kevin Frazier (“Election’s winning candidates should prioritize having a government that works,” Nov. 17).
Frazier’s premise that any government can be effective is overwhelmingly countered by our experience over the last 113 years. I think that the act of continuously enlarging our government has proven that everything it gets involved with is fouled up.
That experience should make the case for a limited version of government. After all, government is best when it governs least. Our country was the first country in history largely using free markets, with England the second-least regulated country.
From 1789 to about the time Woodrow Wilson ascended to the presidency, there was little government intrusion in American’s lives. During that time, the U.S. was the fastest growing country in the history of the world.
Against this history and hard-won experience, Frazier wants to regulate mankind’s newest miraculous invention, artificial intelligence. That’s not right. It brings to mind former President Ronald Reagan’s famous assertion that if something is working, government tries to regulate it; when the regulation stops growth and the business is losing money, the government then decides to subsidize it. That’s ridiculous.
Let government reduce its obstacles to man’s natural inclination to grow. Frazier and those in his camp need to study the early history of the U.S. Nothing good will come from more government intrusion.
— Roland D. Underhill, Novato
