RSS Feed
Print Story
E-mail Story
Sound Off for May 4, 2008
| Tuesday, May 27 2008 2:44 PM
Last Updated: Tuesday, May 27 2008 2:44 PM
Reader: The Bluffs property was purchased with the idea of developing it. Somewhere along the way, someone stepped forward to decide that was not a good idea. The problem with that is that it is wrong to take away someone's right to their property and what they do with it.
Those that fear eminent domain understand that fear. The birth of terms like "viewshed" have appeared. Terms like "the machine" and others have come to the front.
In the first place, "the machine" can mean organization, team or any thing that means a group working together for a cause. The term "viewshed" can apply in any neighborhood, someone planting ugly plants or ugly fences that spoil your yard can apply.
Mike Maggard chose to give up his seat as Ward 3 city councilman to go to "greener pastures." When he did this he basically gave up his control or interest in those that live in Ward 3. Ken Weir was elected to Ward 3 and it is his job to represent those citizens. It would be interesting to know how many of those who came to the recent City Council meeting to blast Ken Weir are actually residents of Ward 3.
How many have a stake in the "viewshed"?
Why must Ken Weir be subjected to the threats of a recall just because he represents those in Ward 3? Is it fair for The Californian to use its position to influence what goes on in Ward 3? I don't think so.
Isn't The Californian attempting to do just what the residents of Ward 3 are doing: getting good representation? The residents use their councilman and the paper uses the power of the pen.
I think the term "touche" fits here.
-- Irene Edmonds
Jenner: It's true that the voters in Ward 3 elected Ken Weir to the City Council. And if those seeking to recall him gain the necessary amount of valid signatures to put such a question before voters, the voters in that ward would decide it.
But you don't have to live in Ward 3 to have an interest -- or the right to express an opinion -- about things like a particular development or who's on the Planning Commission.
One Californian columnist, Lois Henry, has called for Weir's recall. Our editorial board has not.
Reader: The more something is presented, people think that it must be true, whether it is or not. The Californian continues to bring up that Gordon Downs, who is an investor of the Canyons project, used to be a client of Councilman Ken Weir. As required by conflict of interest protocol, Mr. Downs was told to get another accountant, which meant that Mr. Weir lost a paying client. Yet every time there is something written about Mr. Weir, that is rehashed. Even during the campaign for election, I do not recall that Mr. Weir either supported or opposed the Canyons project.
All of this came out again when Mr. Weir wanted to have a planning commissioner replaced. I have not been aware of a good explanation as to why he wanted this. The innuendo was that he wanted to advance the Canyons project. Could the "media" do something to clarify this mess that has been created?
No doubt Mr. Weir is not willing to talk to your reporters, for fear that he will be misquoted. I would like to propose arranging for an end to this vendetta. Get together members from TV, radio and the print media and have this out so that Mr. Weir can state his side, and the "media" can question him in a public forum without censorship by editors.
-- Gerhard H. Schmidt, MD
Jenner: We've referred to Councilman Weir's relationship with Gordon Downs on occasion, but we haven't "rehashed" it every time we write about Ken Weir.
Like you, we're interested in obtaining a good explanation as to why Weir wanted to replace Johnson. We printed what Weir said at the last council meeting, but it's been difficult getting answers to our questions.
You can see some of the questions we've asked and the response at city government reporter James Geluso's blog at http://people.bakersfield.com /home/Blog/citybeat/25380.
As for "doing something to clarify this mess," Publisher Ginger Moorhouse wrote Weir on April 23 inviting him to meet with the newspaper's editorial board. "We would like to better understand what the new philosophy is and how we can expect to see it implemented in Bakersfield," she wrote. She has not yet received a reply.
Reader: I was unable to comment on the recent story on your Web site headlined: "Bicyclist killed in south Bakersfield wreck." There was no link to the author's e-mail. There was no place to comment at the footer.
I ride a bike and I know how it works. Blame the victim. The traffic system we have will be viewed with regret in the future and become part of our history that goes in the extremely embarrassing category.
Our traffic system is broken and yet we can't resist arguing that if we comply we will all be safe. Our system should primarily consider risk as the factor for assigning blame. Make it for people, not cars.
In this story a CHP officer's opinion was quoted in a way that made it appear that what he said actually happened. I'm sure it didn't.
If you were to interview a police officer in the south in the 1960s about what happened to the black man that was beaten to death he would probably say, "If you're black and you go against the whites, you will always lose." In that day a majority of southerners would agree, today, not so much (I hope).
Where would a comment like this go on your Web site?
Thanks
-- Scott Dion
Jenner: At this time the software we use to publish Bakersfield.com won't allow readers the chance to comment on individual stories. But there are plenty of other ways for you to voice your opinion.
Many of our stories are also posted on our staff blogs, which allow readers to post comments. A link to "staff blogs" can be found under the "People" tab at the top of the home page. You also can start your own blog on bakersfield.com, again by clicking on the "People tab" and following the links atop the page.
Or you can write a letter to the editor (opinion@bakersfield.com), or send your comments to Sound Off (soundoff@bakersfield.com). You can also mail your comments to "Letters to the Editor" or "Sound Off," The Bakersfield Californian, P.O. Bin 440, Bakersfield, CA 93302-0440.
Reader: I have noticed that the paper seems to have a bias: Printing articles against illegals and the only defensive points you print are not very strong or numerous. If you would do more to print the FACTS so that people aren't ignorantly suggesting impossibilities, then maybe we as a community can start real debate that may help realistically solve some of the problems and burdens of illegal immigration. I dislike the fact that some people dodge taxes too, but those people are not all illegals. Americans dodge taxes and abuse the system, too.
-- Shon Massey
Jenner: We try to print informative and accurate news stories, and our Opinion pages have carried many editorials and syndicated columns presenting a thoughtful and thorough discussion of immigration issues.
If your complaint about people presenting "impossibilities" refers to our letters to the editor, these letters are written by readers -- people who are passionate on both sides of this issue. If you have a different viewpoint, I invite you to write your own letter pointing out why others' suggestions are unrealistic.
Beyond that, it's hard to respond to your complaint without specifics.
Reader: I've read too many so-called "letters to the editor" that talk about Jesus. Any respectable newspaper would not publish these letters.
Please stop printing these letters. They are wholly without merit and are irrelevant to the public discourse on serious issues.
-- Nick Kobliska
Editorial Page Editor Dianne Hardisty responds: The Opinion section discourages theological debates between letter to the editor writers. As a result, quotes from the Bible are generally left out of letters. (This is to avoid the my-quote-is-better-than-your-quote competition.) However, to ban references to Jesus Christ from letters to the editor is a ridiculous request, likely one made to be provocative, rather than constructive.
Reader: After reading the story of North High School runner Cody Gragg, I was perplexed by the choice of pictures The Californian chose to run alongside. Gragg is a fantastic athlete and first-rate student at North High. He has accomplished a lot in his four years of school and his signing with Fresno State represents all of the hard work he chose put forth.
So, did The Californian choose a picture of Gragg signing his letter of intent? Did they choose a picture of him shaking the hand of his coach or a picture of him with his parents? Did they even choose a picture where we could see his whole face?
No. They chose a picture of him kissing his high school girlfriend. I know The Californian had better choices of pictures. Mr. Gragg deserved a picture worthy of his accomplishments.
-- Jennifer Stanley
Jenner: I directed your question to Director of Photography Alex Horvath. Here's what he said:
"I chose this picture because it showed the emotion of the moment. We run hundreds of pictures of high school athletes signing letters of intent and a lot of them are literally someone signing a paper. We get a few subjects that get hugs from teammates -- or once in awhile one like Cody, who chose to kiss his girlfriend after an important moment in his life.
"Heaven help us if we are ever fearful of showing feeling in photographs."
Reader: I love your headline writer in the Sports page. I don't know who that person is, but April 27's "Two Longs could make a right" is absolutely hilarious. I thank you.
I enjoy this so much.
-- Edna Wayne
Reader: I'm a subscriber to your great paper and I want to congratulate John Harte on his picture of hurdler Taylor Jackson on the front page of Friday's Sports section. He really caught a great shot. It makes it just that much more interesting to read the paper when you have shots like that.
Thank you very much.
-- Larry Busch
Reader: Thank you to The Californian for the recent ASPCA Day article with pictures of pets needing adoption and your Pet of the Week section.
These features have resulted in permanent homes for many featured animals. Hopefully many more animals will find homes with your continued support.
Thanks again for the wonderful pictures.
-- Vicki Eick
Secretary, Friends of The Kern County Animal Shelters Foundation