corruption


Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/content/70/9680270/html/wp-content/plugins/image-caption-hover/cpt_inc/render_shortcode.php on line 17

Does Supervisor Cowan know what she’s talking about?

Opinion Piece By Samuel Strait – October 31, 2019 –

It is becoming more of the norm in the current political climate when we
have foolish political figures, who in all sincerity, write utter drivel
in defense of the indefensible.   Supervisor Lori Cowen did not
disappoint with her recent effort in the Triplicate, “Vote for your
party or your County?”,  October 30,2018, to defend SB 1 and the tax
measure seeking to levy tax on the local Cannabis industry, Measure B.
I am not quite sure how Ms. Cowan equates party affiliation and working
across party lines with doing good works for our local communities,
particularly when she is advocating for two measures that will do neither.

In her impassioned defense of SB 1 and the possibility of the loss of
$1,000,000.00 of road funding does she not know that SB 1 money has been
flowing into the State’s coffers for nearly a year?  What exactly does
she think the State is going to do with the money that they have already
collected if Proposition 6 were to be successful, give it back to those
that paid the GAS TAX? Not spend it on roads or related infrastructure
as SB 1 demands? Spend it in places that voted predominately “NO” on
Prop 6?  What is new with that, by the way.  I mean where is the common
sense in that kind of thinking.

Maybe Supervisor Cowan is unaware of a voter passed Proposition from
2007 which was money expressly for roads and infrastructure to be
repaired.   Does she not know that that money was siphoned away by the
State government to cover other budget shortfalls and NEVER replaced to
this day.  Just exactly how did we benefit here locally from that money
or at any other time.  Has the completion date for a bypass of Last
Chance Grade been moved forward since SB 1 came into being?  Have we
received any project from this $1,000,000.00 plus token of State
affection that is anything more than lighted traffic walkways, traffic
circles, bike paths, and a mysterious “safety” project at the junction
of Hwy 199 and Elk Valley Road?  Why exactly is the the City of Crescent
City being favored, at least according to our illustrious Mayor Blake
Inscore , with $4.1 million dollars of road money to FIX HALF OF FRONT
STREET, about 300 yards of road, when some how the federal government
(not the most competent when it comes to spending the tax dollar} can
build ONE FULL MILE OF FEDERAL INTERSTATE INCLUDING AN OVERPASS FOR
AROUND $1,000,000.00.  Kind of makes you think, “What’s wrong here in
the “Golden State”.   And, finally why is it when our local political
figures are given promises of money in the present or even in the future
that there is the automatic assumption that things will get done that
are both useful and beneficial?

Supervisor Cowan needs to step back from her gushing endorsement, along
with Supervisors Gerry Hemmingsen and Chris Howard, of no on Proposition
6 and check to see if this is a political decision or something that
truly benefits the local citizens.  I think that no  matter how the vote
on Proposition 6 turns out, there won’t be much actual improvement in
our roads situation, if ever from the State.

The other issue that Supervisor Cowan takes up is her support for
Measure B on November’s ballot, another tax measure which she is bold
enough to claim necessary to cover the expenses that the County EXPECTS
to incur with the legalization of the commercial aspect of recreational
cannabis.  That’s right, expenses the County EXPECTS to incur when the
ban is lifted and the word “commercial” is added to the cannabis
vocabulary.  Currently, cannabis individually produced for personal use
is legal in Del Norte County, it is just the large scale commercial
growth, sale and manufacturing that is banned.  The ordinances being
proposed for anything commercial with regard to cannabis will likely
take final form when the taxing power is given to the County by passage
of Measure B.  I for one, am not quite sure why MS. Cowan is wishing to
authorize  the passage of a tax measure on those that would as a
commercial enterprise be passing that cost on to their customers, when
she clearly is aware of the fact that commercial cannabis will equate to
criminal activity and the cost to the County that such activity
guarantees.    The logic fails me. Cannabis for medical purposes seems
palatable for most people. Recreational cannabis on a personal level is
the law of the land in California.  Commercial cannabis is still a topic
that can be decided locally, but many are questioning the idea that it
adds any value to their community.  Maybe not now and see what develops
in Counties that push forward.  It already seems to have generated a
significant number of problems in our neighbor to the south.

As Supervisor Cowan attempts to convey, it is important to actually
understand the consequences of many of the votes people cast without
much thought to the overall result.  Often, what appears on the ballot
many not actually represent anything truly beneficial to the voter, it
just has that appearance.  Would a politician or political process
deceive us, the voter?  I will let you make the informed decision.   Yes
on Proposition 6.   No on Measure B and C.  Lets just see if good
government can find a better way.

2 Responses to Does Supervisor Cowan know what she’s talking about?

  1. Samuel Strait Reply

    November 4, 2018 at 11:06 pm

    Robert, I have posted my response to your comments as a separate article. I hope that it addresses some of my concerns per your comment. Feel free to respond.

  2. Robert Derego Reply

    November 2, 2018 at 8:47 am

    We already have data on cannabis, Sam. Greenfield has Loudpack cannabis taking up 20 acres of their ag footprint and Loudpack is now their largest employer. Give fastfood workers more options and their wage will go up. Supply and demand works on labor too. We have 4000 acre of lily bringing in $12 million a year. When we legalize it, there is no criminal. Except the people who claim to support a constitution but poop on the 9th and 10th amendments. The rough drafts of the constitution were written on cannabis sativa, it was grown by the drafters, and never mentioned to be banned in the constitution unlike alcohol

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.