Issue link: https://www.epageflip.net/i/148178
4A Daily News – Saturday, August 3, 2013 Opinion DAILY NEWS RED BLUFF TEHAMA COUNTY T H E V O I C E O F T E H A M A C O U NTY S I N C E 1 8 8 5 Greg Stevens, Publisher gstevens@redbluffdailynews.com Chip Thompson, Editor editor@redbluffdailynews.com Editorial policy The Daily News opinion is expressed in the editorial. The opinions expressed in columns, letters and cartoons are those of the authors and artists. Marijuana regulations Editor: While it may appear that the Board of Supervisors has taken action to tighten up Ordinance 1936, what they have done is mere camouflage, dust stirred up in the Supervisors haste to fix an Ordinance that is literally destroying Rancho Tehama. The Ad Hoc Committee [Steve Chamblin and Bob Williams] admits that there have been "an increasing number of complaints" regarding the implementation of the ordinance. Actually there have been about 400 complaints from Rancho Tehama alone, give or take a few. The Committee seems to realize that the illegal marijuana growers are "violat[ing] state laws and additional county ordinances, including zoning and building codes, sewage disposal requirements, and the county's aquifer protection ordinance – often with serious consequences for the community." But they offer no solutions. The resolution of the problem, according to Sheriff Hencratt, is to wait "about three years." Why can't they take action on the Ranch? Because they "are so busy with major drug crimes." Doesn't the Sheriff realize that the biggest drug crime in the county is happening in Rancho Tehama? Some of the changes offered in the "tougher laws" would be humorous if they weren't so sad. Take the restricting of all grows to 12 plants. Evidently the supervisors have never seen a full grown marijuana plant. They are already 5 gallon in size before they are planted, and they are six feet tall and fat as can be when The first is explaining why you they are harvested. Using a con- implemented Ordinance 1936 without adequately servative estimate of researching the consetwo pounds per plant Your quences that would and a selling price of arise from such a poor$2,000 dollars per ly written document. pound, each of these The second is why plots is worth $48,000 don't you empower dollars. There are at least 300 gardens on the Ranch TIDE and turn them loose in and they all have more than six Rancho Tehama until the illegal plants per grow. Actually, we growers are either in jail or gone? expect to see a harvest of about The third question is why are you allowing the growers to harvest 5000 plants. Do the math. And what about the drug free this crop? These growers have zones? The school bus stops, the invaded and trashed our commuchurches, and the parks cover nity, stolen our ground water, and about a third of the ranch. There threaten our citizens. And our are at least 98 gardens in these supervisors are just going to let zones. We hear a lot of talk about them walk away with millions of saving the children, but the coun- illegal dollars. Rancho Tehama is ty officials have made no attempt just the tip of the iceberg. The county is facing an unmitigated to clean up these areas. There are three questions crisis. The solution is simple. which, in my opinion, the Board Deny them the harvest. Alan Mills, Rancho Tehama of Supervisors needs to address. Turn Your officials STATE ASSEMBLYMAN — Dan Logue, 1550 Humboldt Road, Ste. 4, Chico, CA 95928, 530-895-4217 STATE SENATOR — Jim Nielsen, 2635 Forest Ave., Ste. 110, Chico, CA 95928, (530) 879-7424, senator.nielsen@senate.ca.gov GOVERNOR — Jerry Brown, State Capitol Bldg., Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 445-2841; Fax (916) 5583160; E-mail: governor@governor.ca.gov. U.S. REPRESENTATIVE — Doug LaMalfa 506 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, 202-2253076. U.S. SENATORS — Dianne Feinstein (D), One Post Street, Suite 2450, San Francisco, CA 94104; (415) 393-0707. Fax (415) 3930710. Barbara Boxer (D), 1700 Montgomery St., Suite 240, San Francisco, CA 94111; (510) 286-8537. Fax (202) 224-0454. Letter policy The Daily News welcomes letters from its readers on timely topics of public interest. All letters must be signed and provide the writer's home street address and home phone number. Anonymous letters, open letters to others, pen names and petition-style letters will not be allowed. Letters should be typed and cannot exceed two double-spaced pages or 500 words. When several letters address the same issue, a cross section of those submitted will be considered for publication. Letters will be edited. Letters are published at the discretion of the editor. Mission Statement We believe that a strong community newspaper is essential to a strong community, creating citizens who are better informed and more involved. The Daily News will be the indispensible guide to life and living in Tehama County. We will be the premier provider of local news, information and advertising through our daily newspaper, online edition and other print and Internet vehicles. The Daily News will reflect and support the unique identities of Tehama County and its cities; record the history of its communities and their people and make a positive difference in the quality of life for the residents and businesses of Tehama County. How to reach us Main office: 527-2151 Classified: 527-2151 Circulation: 527-2151 News tips: 527-2153 Sports: 527-2153 Obituaries: 527-2151 Photo: 527-2153 On the Web www.redbluffdailynews.com Fax Newsroom: 527-9251 Classified: 527-5774 Retail Adv.: 527-5774 Legal Adv.: 527-5774 Business Office: 527-3719 Address 545 Diamond Ave. Red Bluff, CA 96080, or P.O. Box 220 Red Bluff, CA 96080 Commentary Homeless in Tehama County Economic data indicate that Tehama County and Red Bluff are less than affluent; there is high unemployment, per capita income is lower than average for the state, educational levels are also well below statewide numbers, the median value of homes is much lower, and so on. Economic numbers do not measure heart and character, and it would be hard to make the normal generalizations about us that come with such numbers. Last week I presented some basic data about the homeless population in the United States with some focus on California. After reviewing California data a little more, this column will look at data from our Tehama County and try to reach some conclusions. California has a homeless population rate of almost 35 homeless individuals per 10,000 persons in the general population. It also has a high percentage of unsheltered homeless people, with almost two-thirds of the homeless population without shelter. This is particularly concerning because the population count is taken in winter when shelter might be more important. There were over 85,000 people sleeping under bridges, in abandoned buildings, in their cars, or other places not intended for human habitation in California at the time of the count. Those who are labeled "chronic homeless" make up a large proportion of California's homeless population, about 25 percent. The national statistic is less than 16 percent. With that in mind, let's look at the data for Tehama County. The latest point in time count of the homeless reveals a population of 186 individuals; 173 of those were counted in the area of Red Bluff, 12 in Los Molinos. On the date of the survey 60 individuals stayed in an emergency shelter, seven in a motel, 28 in transitional housing, and 46 in a tent or trailer. Eighteen stayed in a place with no roof. (The count is taken in winter when the rotating PATH shelter is open.) If we just count those in emergency shelter and transitional housing, then over 51 percent of the local homeless population was sheltered on the date of the survey. This is a higher percentage than the statewide average and probably reflects on the local efforts to ameliorate the problems of homeless individuals. One hundred and seven, which is 57.5 percent, of those counted said they had been homeless for more than one year; 52 said they had been homeless less than six months. This means that over 85 percent our homeless population has been homeless for more than six months. Sixty percent (110) said they had experienced no more than three episodes of homeless; 46 individuals reported they had experienced at least four episodes of homelessness. Almost one fourth of those counted said they had children in the local schools. Over two-thirds of those counted were male. When asked which of a list of conditions applied to them, 34 people stated chronic substance abuse, 61 reported mental health issues, 68 reported physical disability, 47 reported chronic health conditions (individuals could check more than one item.) Fifty (50) indicated none of those conditions applied to them. Almost half of those surveyed received some form of public assistance; one quarter received Social Security. One claimed to work on a low paying full time job; 13 said they had part time work; and 52 said they collected cans and bottles for recycling to garner some income. There are some generalizations we can make with this information. The first is that the based on the expectation that rate of homelessness in Tehama they will make a long term difCounty is slightly lower than ference for folks. For example, there are strict for California as a requirements for livwhole, with a ratio of ing in the temporary about 29 per 10,000 housing for both the versus the statewide women and children rate of over 34 per at the Sale House as 10,000. Given our well as for the men at county's small populathe two transitional tion compared to the housing units that over 38 million CaliPATH runs. To eat at fornians, there is most the temporary winter likely not a statistically shelter that rotates significant difference, from church, those however. We can say, Joe who eat there must nevertheless, that the also stay the night, number of Tehama can have no pets, and County homeless indibe free from the viduals is not disproinfluence of drugs or portionately large. It looks like we may have a alcohol. There are success stories. higher proportion of the "chronically homeless" than for Most recently a woman called the state as a whole. Over half my wife by name as we were of those surveyed stated they walking to our car after church. have been homeless for more She had been staying in the than one year; less than one PATH shelter one of the nights third answered that chronic we were providing meals. We health, disability, or substance didn't recognize her, but she abuse issues did not apply to remembered Peachey and was them. (Statewide the rate of very thankful for our meager chronic homelessness is about efforts to help those in the shel25 percent of the total homeless ter. She was happy to tell us she was going to move back to population.) A higher percentage of our Sacramento where her husband homeless population had shel- had found a job and they could ter at the time of the survey be together. If you talk to those than in California as a whole. involved in PATH they can tell Forty reported sleeping on the many more success stories. There are problems, of street, in a car, or in an area without a roof. Forty-six course, with a certain element stayed in a tent or trailer. In of the homeless population; California the rate of unshel- how we handle those problems tered homelessness is almost 65 will reflect on our community. percent. Depending on how We are generally a generous your count tents or trailers our community, if not a wealthy rate is either about 46 percent one. I am sure our generosity or only 22 percent if you only and the coordinated efforts of count open air, street, and car many will continue to make progress in managing the sleeping. Most likely our higher rate homelessness issue in our comof providing shelter, even if munity. temporary, is a tribute to the Joe Harrop is a retired many people in our community educator with more than 30 who are trying to make life less difficult for the homeless in our years of service to the North community. Their help is not State. He can be reached at indiscriminate; it is practical, DrJoeHarrop@sbcglobal.net. Harrop