We have every right to protect our property

To the Editor:

Since you three gentlemen, John Rogers, Jay Peltz, and Jared Rossman, and appointed public servant, GSD board chair Dennis Bourassa, want to obscure the facts in your letters to the editor, let me help remind you about a couple things:

Yes, our family has made public comments to federal, state, county and local agencies, concerning different proposed projects that have been required and solicited by those same agencies, either sent to us by US mail or what has been publicly noticed or posted in the newspaper and or emailed by either the proposed projects CEQA lead agency, discretionary agency or responsible agency. I can’t help that these projects have all been proposed near or next to our property and home at River Crest that in our opinion would adversely affect the environment in many different ways, i.e. South Fork Eel River or Prime Ag Farmland.

In my opinion, from what you stated in your letter(s) to the editor, you are saying we have no right under the 1st Amendment to voice our opinion? Nor should it be our right to be proactive in protecting the natural environment in and around our home, property, county or state?

In my humble opinion, you are using circular reasoning and logical fallacies to make your argument that are not supported by fact, but only intended to name call, harm and ostracize our longstanding family in this community (1961). We have every right to protect our property from any neighboring property owners and their proposed projects, either from subdivision, development plans, General Plan Amendments, rezoning or lot line adjustments that would adversely harm our property and or the South Fork Eel River, aquatic resources, wildlife habitats and the rezoning of prime ag soils and farmland aka Agriculture Exclusive zoning and land use for non-food production development.

Let me also reiterate, my letter to the editor from Oct. 8 is based in fact, not a fabrication, misrepresentation, prevarication or complete distortion of the facts. I did not make up the fact the Garberville Sanitary District (GSD) spent over $40,000 of ratepayer money at the request of the Southern Humboldt Community Park Board (SHCP), so they could be included in the GSD service boundary annexation and get a new water connection. This fact was stated many times and publicly recorded by GSD board members and staff at GSD board meetings, in public or documented by GSD in their meeting minutes, resolutions, board votes or public communications that can be viewed on the GSD web site.

As of Oct. 22, 2013, GSD has publicly submitted a five-page letter in reply to the SHCP documenting no historical water service to the SHCP from either the Garberville Water Co. or GSD at its last GSD board meeting and I quote:

"That the SHCP board now feels it is appropriate to assert that the Garberville Sanitary District is obligated to establish a new connection where no evidence of a separate historical connection exists is very disappointing."

You see, this is not the first time the SHCP board of directors has held the community hostage. Here is what GSD stated to the SHCP board in June 2013:

"The GSD board is disappointed that the SHCP board feels it is necessary to hold the easement to PG&E hostage by attaching conditions to granting this easement that cannot be approved in conjunction with the drinking water project. This board has made numerous efforts, expended funds, delayed our annexation project, and provided significant support to the SHCP.

"Withholding this easement to PG&E so that they can install the electrical service line to the SWTP does not seem in keeping with the SHCP’s efforts to serve the best interests of the community."

Have a joyful and wonderful holiday season.

Ed Voice & Voice Family

Garberville

Advertisement