Issue link: https://www.epageflip.net/i/8942
6A – Daily News – Saturday, April 10, 2010 Opinion D NEWSAILY RED BLUFF TEHAMACOUNTY T H E V O I C E O F T E H A M A C O U N T Y 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. Letter policy The Daily News welcomes let- ters from its readers on timely topics of public interest. All let- ters must be signed and pro- vide the writer’s home street address and home phone num- ber. 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 submit- ted will be considered for publi- cation. Letters will be edited. Letters are published at the discretion of the editor. Mission Statement We believe that a strong com- munity 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 vehi- cles. The Daily News will reflect and support the unique identities of Tehama County and its cities; record the history of its com- munities and their people and make a positive difference in the quality of life for the resi- dents 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 Chelsea King now joins Polly Klass, Bill Reagan and thousands of other Californians who have been and will be the victims of ill founded, short sighted sentencing and parole policies. Decisions of governors, legislators, ivory tower criminal justice intellectuals and particularly the California Depart- ment of Corrections and Rehabili- tation (CDCR) are major factors in criminality. The 1977 Determinant Sen- tence Law gave us Richard Davis who raped and murdered Polly Klass in 1993. In 1992 Senate Bill 92, a parole reform bill, gave us a rash of victimization that included the murder of Bill Reagan on the streets of Sacramento. Current policies give us Chelsea King. History repeats! Contemporary experts and CDCR leaders pro- nounce their bright ideas “good for public safety,” then run for cover and cover-up while legisla- tors who voted for these policies are “born again” crime fighters when the predictable victimization occurs. Albert Gardner, now charged with the murder of Chelsea King is but the most recent egregious example of dangerous parole poli- cies. In 2000, Gardner was con- victed of two counts of Lewd and Lascivious Acts with a Child Under 14 and for one count of false imprisonment. He was given sentencing and parole leniency as he violated parole seven times includ- ing behavior that is the most predictive of future victimization by a sex offender, including living near a school and marijua- na possession. For six of his violations he was not referred to the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH or Parole Board) as required by the Robin Reagan Regulation. As Chairman of the Board of Prison Terms in 1994, I wrote this regulation to stop such dangerous, repetitious and escalat- ing criminality. The one time he was referred to the board, he got in parole-speak “love”- no conse- quence-continue on parole.” Before release from prison he Guest View Assemblyman Jim Nielsen lent Predator Law. But nets are of no value if not used. Historically CDCR has been far more con- cerned with prison popula- tion and taking away the authority of the Parole Board as “gate keep- er” for life inmates and parolees than for preserving public safety. I worked with crime victims was not screened for Mentally Disordered Offender (MDO) or Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) civil commitments, either of which, if he qualified, would have kept him in prison. Neither was he ordered for MDO or SVP evalua- tion when he was before the Parole Board. Lost opportunities! As Parole Board Chairman, I worked with law enforcement and the legislature to create safety nets to ensure sex predators and career criminals would not be free to vic- timize. These included the Reagan Regulation, a zero tolerance gang regulation and the Sexually Vio- and law enforcement to write Marsey’s Law, which was passed by voters in 2008. In part, it requires sentences “shall not be substantially diminished by early release polices intended to allevi- ate prison overcrowding.” In 2009, a majority of the legis- lature supported SBx3 18, which did just that! It provided for addi- tional “good time” credits (above the 50% inmates already get). It allowed “non revocable parole” which simply shifts the burden of continued victimization from the state to local government and which mostly means continued criminality will result in NO con- sequences. Many other policies of CDCR and the BPH are placing you and your families at risk. I have asked the governor to order the following immediate actions by CDCR that will ensure the most predictably dangerous will not be released into our com- munities. 1. Strict compliance with the Parole Board’s “Robin Reagan Regulation” that requires any parole violation behavior of a seri- ous and or violent parolee to be reported to the Parole Board. 2. Strict compliance with the Parole Board’s “zero tolerance” gang regulation that includes any criminal validated by CDCR, Department of Justice, or by any local law enforcement authority as a gang member. 3. Strict screening of any inmate or parolee that may qualify for SVP or MDO commitments. 4. A restriction on the class of parolees subject to non revocable parole, or better, a repeal or sunset of this ill-conceived law. 5. Public safety and justice be the number one consideration in sentencing and parole policies of California. 6. Independence of the Board of Parole Hearings. 7. Pre-2010 “good time” cred- its must be earned and no extra credits granted. There are other ways to pro- vide rehabilitation and diminish recidivism. Some actions can be quickly implemented, others take time - some even a generation. Today, Californians are at risk and it’s time for action. STATE ASSEMBLYMAN — Jim Nielsen (R), State Capitol Bldg., Room 4164 P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento 94249; (916) 319-2002; Fax (916) 319- 2102 STATE SENATOR — Sam Aanestad (R), State Capitol Bldg., Room 2054, Sacramen- to, CA 95814. (916) 651-4004; Fax (916) 445-7750 GOVERNOR — Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), State Capitol Bldg., Sacramento, CA 95814; (916) 445-2841; Fax (916) 558-3160; E-mail: gover- nor@governor.ca.gov. U.S. REPRESENTATIVE — Wally Herger (R), 2635 Forest Ave. Ste. 100, Chico, CA 95928; 893-8363. U.S.SENATORS — Dianne Feinstein (D), One Post Street, Suite 2450, San Francisco, CA 94104; (415) 393-0707. Fax (415) 393-0710. Marketing Red Bluff, who’s responsible? Commentary Last week I examined the data section of the Tourism Strategic Marketing Plan Update released in November; the Update generated a lot of talk about branding Red Bluff in order to make it an identi- fiable and attractive tourist destina- tion. The Plan Update was pre- pared by the consulting firm Inte- grated Marketing Systems. I found the data section of their Update wanting, reminding me more of cheerleading than consulting or serious data analysis. This week I want to examine some of the recommendations in the report. For the most part those recommendations are not very imaginative and are merely mar- ginal modifications of the "suc- cessful" recommendations in the original plan from 1997. A few reasonably intelligent people who had skimmed through the 1997 Plan and who gathered around in some coffee shop could probably have come up with the same or bet- ter suggestions in a morning. One of my pet peeves in reading the plan revolves around the desig- nation of north bound drivers on I- 5 being the prime target for the plan and the lack of activity and focus on that in the Update. This was a major target in the 1997 Plan and remains so today. Neverthe- less, only a vague reference to sig- nage even begins to address the issue of attracting those individuals driving north on I-5 in the plan update. The 1997 Plan made some suggestions which apparently have not been implemented, and those who were assigned responsibility for implementing those sugges- tions have apparently not been held accountable. When a north bound driver approaches Red Bluff, what is he/she greeted with? There are no signs highlighting the desirability of visiting Red Bluff, or the fact that we have a top hospital. Why should a driver stop here except for gas? The driver may as well head to Redding and the Sun Dial Bridge and Turtle Bay or the Giant Flea Market in Podunk. If the driver turns off, there is lit- tle to greet him. Take a look for yourself at what greets the drive at the end of the off ramp. There is no “Welcome to Red Bluff” sign, no pictorial directory, or any real indi- cation you have reached an inter- esting and welcoming community. The polls with the traffic signals on them are losing their faded yellow paint, the signs for Shasta College, Main Street, etc. stand alone and are not all that helpful. Behind those signs is an empty non- descript field with a mature oak tree, albeit with spectacular hills and mountains in the distance. If the driver turns left into town, there are poorly painted lane lines, no street lights, and extremely poor paving--not a very nice invitation to or statement about our commu- nity. At night the lighting is poor, making for a dreary entrance into what we know is a great place to live. Then the driver passes by unlandscaped areas, sometimes dotted with unprofessional signs until he/she arrives at Wendy’s, Walgreens, and ARCO. At that point Red Bluff appears to begin. Our north bound driver is next confronted with a non-descript Chamber of Commerce building that does not reflect the brand we are trying to establish for Red Bluff. The driver next sees Sacred Heart Church which is a landmark followed by the donut store which the planning commission must have blinked at when it issued a stamp of approval. If we are going to brand Red Bluff, then we should package it as well. Welcoming and informative signs at the I-5 turnoffs, particular- ly at the first turn off heading north, would help do just that. The origi- nal plan had specified some sig- nage along I-5 to high- light the attractiveness of Red Bluff (activities 45- 48), but after ten years the signs are not yet a reality. One wonders if anyone paid attention to that plan, or if it was merely a token product. Some groups were des- ignated the responsibili- ty for accomplishing those tasks. How were they held accountable? After inserting some generic marketing prin- ciples, on page 12 of the Update the consultants list four strategies : “1.) Increase Red Bluff-Tehama County name recognition; 2.) Increase total num- ber of person-trips; 3.) Increase average length of stay; and, 4.) Increase awareness of the impor- tance of tourism to the local econ- omy.” These are admirable goals, but they are not “strategies”. Strate- gies are the methods used to meet goals; this is a mistake in terminol- ogy a professional consultant should never make. The report then proclaims that two of the "strate- gies" have been "quite successful", based, of course, on their sloppy data analysis. The Plan Update suggests a greater focus on Red Bluff as a destination and then suggests “that after twelve successful years, it is time to review the marketing theme and resultant collateral pieces to determine their fit with current needs and purposes.” How is that for obtuse language? The consultant then refers to Joe Harrop five activities from the original 1997 which sought to increase Tehama County name recognition: 1.) Recruit a task force to develop a countywide theme and related- look; 2.) Design up to three alternative propos- als; 3.) Revise proposal based on one and two; 4.) Present draft propos- al for review by various organizations; and 5.) The task force to review the above and receive a final proof of the design. (Page 74) There is no indication in the Update if those activities were already pursued and/or how successful they were. I assume those responsible 13 years ago are still responsible for accomplishing them now. If we want to grow Red Bluff and Tehama County as a tourist destination, we need to be serious about what we do. There needs to be a plan and someone needs to be held accountable for implementing that plan. Our County and Red Bluff have many things to offer tourists. We should be proud of our city and the quality of life available here, even if we are ashamed about the quality of our plans and plan updates. The City Council contributes to the fiscal support of the Chamber of Commerce; in difficult bud- getary years the Council thinks twice about that support. Some level of support has always been provided as far as I can remember. Maybe the City Council should ask “what have you done for me late- ly?” before the next renewal. Early release places all at risk