Letters to the Editor

Strictly Speaking

In response to Mr. Dale Lowdermilk’s erudite letter comparing responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and those for skin cancer dangers, just this:

The draconic measures described for combatting skin cancers are useful warnings that people can adopt for their own protection. Fortunately, cancer is not contagious. Therefore, everyone has the option of following guidelines or not, harming only him/herself if they don’t.

On the other hand, COVID-19 is extremely contagious and what an individual does has an impact not only on him/herself, but on others. Until a vaccine is found, we need to take what should be obvious precautions, such as wearing masks in public, frequent hand washing, keeping away from crowds, etc., in order to prevent spreading or contacting the disease. Guidelines are necessary and helpful if we are not to spread the virus with its consequences of severe illness and even death.

Perhaps your letter was meant as a spoof? If so, I didn’t find it especially funny, considering that since March, this virus has led to the death of 197,000 people in the U.S. alone (917,000 worldwide). (Google, Total Corona Virus Deaths Worldwide; Our World in Data.)

Pauline Paulin

Mind the Gap

The equity gap between school districts in our community is increasingly divisive. What will it take for all voters across the County to prioritize schools and student needs? We must use this moment to restructure education, do all we can to re-open schools, and provide equitable funding. We support Cold Spring School District’s leadership including their efforts to re-open.

Audacious Foundation

Hot Critical Air Causes Local Warming in Montecito

What an exhausting read courtesy of Nancy Freeman in volume 26 issue 37 / 10-17 September 2020. Who is this critical thinker that so much ink was dedicated to her trumpeting of baseless assertions?

In your volume 26 issue 34 / 20-27 August 2020 I would like to just point out several observations. Here are just a few examples of Nancy Freeman’s critical thinking and I do mean true to the definition of critical.

Nancy Freeman suggested in paragraph four beginning with “Only a shallow one-dimensional male would conclude…” and ending with “Trump is a shallow man.” Is this name calling of Buckley and Trump? We think so.

Nancy Freeman goes on to say in paragraph nine beginning with “I hope Mr. Buckley is still laughing…” In this paragraph she uses the words “mostly old frightened white men who make up today’s Republican Party…” Is this name calling, racist, ageism or all three? We think so.

Nancy Freeman goes on to say in paragraph 11 beginning with “Some evidence of Trump’s racism…” In this paragraph she uses the words “white sycophants.”

It was a pleasure to read Lorraine Morey’s response to Nancy Freeman aka the “critical thinker” in your volume 26 issue 36 / 3-10 September 2020. So much of what Lorraine Morey stated is true and of great consequence, i.e. “no one approves of sexual misbehavior toward a woman.” There are other mentions that are worthy of repeating but I will refrain from restating the obvious.

Back to the Nancy Freeman in your volume 26 issue 37 / 10-17 September 2020. Nancy Freeman states in paragraph 11 beginning with “I question you on that score…” Our Nancy Freeman says, “Really. I have my letter in front of me. My copy does not mention Republican men.” See above and more.

There is so much wrong with all of your whining Nancy Freeman, I am going to stop writing. Save the ink. Before I do, your anger is palpable. I can smell and sense the froth that pours off your lips and fingers as if you were sitting across from me.

I only can hope for you that you will be more conscious of the venom that resides in your words. If you could just try to do your part in keeping your porch and side of the street clean, safe, happy, and resentment free your world and others around the world might be better served. It’s a big job.

WS Wolf

Bias from Summerland Buzz

Ms. Leslie A. Westbrook‘s “Summerland Buzz” column misleadingly used statistics from 2016’s Proposition 64 results (Legalization of Marijuana), to seemingly justify the potential placement of a retail cannabis store in Summerland.

Question: When Summerland voters approved Prop 64 in 2016, how many citizens were aware that retail cannabis storefronts could be located in their community?

Answer: None. In 2016 no Santa Barbara County voter could have known this, because the County hadn’t approved a cannabis ordinance until well after the election. Proposition 64 allowed California’s county and city governments the discretion on whether or not to allow cannabis cultivation, and/or retail cannabis storefront businesses. No vote was ever taken by Summerland or county residents, whether or not they wanted to have a retail cannabis store in their community.

Takeaway: No matter how desperately several County Board of Supervisor members and cannabis growers want to shift the focus, it was the Board, not voters, who recently approved the administrative process to begin the county’s cannabis retail storefront licensing process. Ventura County does not allow any cannabis to be cultivated nor any retail storefronts to operate. Neither do the cities of Carpinteria, Ventura, or Santa Maria. This decision was made solely by the Board of Supervisors, not by a vote of county citizens.

I’m disappointed that this columnist chose to discredit the Summerland Association’s survey results. This was a major effort by the volunteer Summerland Association to determine the sentiment of residents and store owners/commercial tenants. There was no bias in the survey process. It’s noted that national political polls use a much smaller sample size vs population, to gage citizen sentiment. Supervisor Das Williams, in his remarks before the Board, took the survey results seriously and backed off supporting a retail cannabis store in Summerland. Residents overwhelmingly believe there is no community benefit to locating a retail cannabis store in Summerland.

Sincerely yours,

Mark Brickley

Keep Dogs Leashed

I hike quite a bit on the local trails and I agreed with most of your recent article by Michelle Ebbin about improving physical and mental health by hiking. However she was wrong about bringing unleashed dogs on the trails. Dogs are not allowed off leash on trails in the city of Santa Barbara (https://www.santabarbaraca.gov/gov/depts/police/admin/animals.asp#548) or the County of Santa Barbara (https://www.countyofsb.org/parks/dog.sbc). Most of our trails start on city or county property so these laws apply. As a practical matter, many of our trails are lined with poison oak which can end up on your dog’s coat and when they are off leash they can brush against passing hikers on our narrow trails and pass along the poison oak. Please keep your dog on leash on the hiking trails. For off leash exercise please use one of our parks or beaches that have designated off leash exercise areas.

Bill Fincher