Letters to the Editor: Bodega Bay Navigator
Reject General Patreaus' Report-Get Out of Iraq NOW!
Posted September 11, 2007 -------- Patraeus used misleading statistics to support his recommendation that we "stay the course" in Iraq. Did he get his guidance from the book "How to Lie With Statistics"? Iraq is not safer or more secure and we are escalating a civil war that we were not asked to inject ourselves into in the first place. The Iraqi cabinet, after returning from their annual vacation that is longer than any I have ever had, is disintegrating before our eyes. How are things improving? Lies got us into this war, and now more lies are being used to keep us engaged for years to come increasing American hatred throughout the world. The draw-down that Patraeus speaks of is to bring troop levels down to "pre-surge" levels when the American people spoke prior to this saying that we must begin withdrawing our troops and end this losing battle. We did not say to increase our presence or ensure that our troops remain in Iraq in perpetuity.
Peggy Shannon, Bodega Bay
Posted September 10, 2007 -------- Now that a child has been killed by one of the steep, barren dunes at Bodega Bay's South Salmon Creek Beach, I feel it's important that people become aware, not only of their hidden danger, but also that we Salmon Creek homeowners have been imploring state parks for decades to fence them off, terrace them, and plant them with grasses.
This simple procedure would stabilize them and keep them from swallowing the beautiful, mature, bird-habitat, 30-foot Monterey cypress trees in the park. It would also prevent injury to children, and stop the dunes' macabre advance toward our homes.
About 25 years ago, a ship was beached at Salmon Creek Beach by a storm.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers brought in heavy equipment and re-floated the ship. In the process, it dug out a large area of precious Mediterranean grass so lovingly planted back in the 1950s by the U.S. Forest Service, assisted by local Grange volunteers -- all of whom had seen the native grasses wiped out by human and animal foot traffic.
These folks had learned from what they'd seen. So they understood something that modern-day ecologists cannot seem to understand. Namely that native grasses won't withstand the rigors of modern foot traffic here at the beach, and that the imported Mediterranean grass is the only grass that will grow quickly enough, root deeply enough, and defend itself (jabbing at legs with its sharp points) with sufficient ferocity, to survive modern beach-abuse.
Denuded of its Mediterranean grass protection by the heavy equipment brought in to re-float the ship, the sand quickly formed into moving, barren dunes, and began its ominous migration toward our homes, swallowing dozens of trees.
The Army Corps of Engineers offered to replant the grass and repair the damage. But California State Parks didn't respond to the offer. State Parks subsequently made a few uncoordinated and inept efforts to fence the dunes during the eighties -- even brought in a bulldozer to terrace them -- but never followed up with planting.
As a result, the steep and dangerous dunes kept moving. The windblown, 40-foot-high dune that's advancing toward Driftwood Road Corner has moved hundreds of feet -- about 10 feet closer just this year -- and is now about 120-feet from private property.
Children enjoy digging tunnels into the steep dunes and getting inside. It's unsafe.
In 2005 my neighbor wrote a letter to the State Parks resource ecologist with the following warning: "We feel that the dune poses an attractive nuisance to the many small children who play on it and fear that they will either be injured by hidden broken glass/rusty nails, etc. or by becoming buried in the unstable sand or by having a spinal cord injury secondary to jumping off the steep dune."
Ironically, that same State Parks ecologist met with a group of Salmon Creek homeowners shortly after receiving that letter.
He comforted us, assuring us all that there's no way these barren dunes could pose a threat to children playing in them or to our homes, and that chances are good that the dune will run out of sand and stop moving. He also told us it didn't matter that over a dozen bird-habitat Montery cypress trees had been swallowed at South Salmon Creen Beach Park---with two more currently being buried---because Monterey trees are not native to the area.
State Parks has repeatedly denied many requests these past several years that they terrace the sand, and plant stabilizing vegetation, thus beautifying the park and ending the public nuisance and dangers the barren dunes pose. They've not sought funding for such a project on the grounds that available funds would be better spent elsewhere.
During his first weeks in office, I wrote a letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
about the danger of these dunes and what might be done about it. I enclosed
aerial photos of the dune's progress. He responded with a friendly form letter
that made no reference to the issues I'd raised. He forwarded my letter to
the head of State Parks in Sacramento who sent me with a perfunctory reply
that also made no reference to my issues.
Now, a 10-year-old boy has been killed by one of these steep, barren dunes.
Will the boy's death go in vain and unheeded, or will State Parks finally
take its feet off the desk and do something to terrace off and stabilize
these dunes?
Moro Buddy Bohn, Salmon Creek resident
Editor:
Posted June 26, 2007, 8:15 am -------- This letter is in regards to the 06/13/07 posting on your website shortly after our Fire District Board meeting on the 12th of this month. After reading your article, I found several portions that are dubious in nature, and others that flat out incorrect. I also must admit that it is suspicious that this article was posted so quickly after the end of the meeting; especially since a reporter was never in attendance. Also, no one I’ve spoke with even recalls anyone actually reviewing the tape recordings of this meeting. It’s difficult to understand how someone could come to the assumptions drawn together in this article without ever having experienced the meeting, so this letter begs to address this and other inconsistencies found within the story.
(portion redacted)
First: The pay raise demanded by the firefighters union never occurred. This issue was initially brought before the Firefighters Union Local 3051 by the Chief Sean Grinnell to achieve his goal of aligning our pay with our fellow fire organization Russian River FPD. This equal pay would allow crews to be utilized by both organizations to cover sick, vacation, and educational leave that we currently cannot fill with our full-time and (nearly non-existent) part-timers list. This decision would ultimately benefit the district in the fact that mandatory holdover pay (double time) could be avoided on a more frequent basis.
Second: The statement “a year left on the current contract” is true. To reiterate, this pay raise was at the suggestion of the Fire Chief, accepted by the Union and approved by the fire district’s Employee Relations Committee. Why did the Board of Directors Employee Relations Committee accept this contract? Well my understanding is that our budget appears to be very sound and capable of handling a pay increase. The Employee Relations Committee agreed, and passed their approval on to the board for a vote, the board failed to pass the raise 3 to 2. This was not a random pay increase, or a grab at money, but a raise that was sold to the public during the Measure E “push” several years ago. The Fire Chief Sean Grinnell, and board members Tony Anello and George Sage, who comprise Employee Relations Committee believe it is not only possible to live up to the promises of Measure E, but it is in fact the right thing to do.
Third: “The Board's decision to install a solar electric system sparked the request for a pay raise.” This is simply not true, and I believe it has been addressed sufficiently in the above comments. Further, without having actually taken the time to ask the firefighters why they support the pay raise, how could you come to the conclusion that the solar panels were the reason? (portion redacted)
Fourth: “gave taxpayers a small break but was strongly opposed by firefighters.” This is overstated. The firefighters union never “strongly opposed” a tax break. In fact, the Union has remained without comment on this issue and the issue was argued by district board members, not the firefighters. In the end the tax break was fully what the initiators of the break intended – without compromise. You may find it interesting that over the years the firefighters have been told a number of times that the Bodega Bay Fire Protection District was going to be bankrupt in the very near future. This simply has not occurred. Take the time to look at the budget. Look at the reserves. You’ll see that the fire district is amassing a large surplus and the firefighters are still being told the district is going broke. These were the original conditions under which the first union contract was negotiated under in 2004, and it’s been proven to be incorrect.
Fifth: “The apparent spending spree brought angry responses from firefighters.” The employees have no issues with the vehicle/equipment purchases. We welcome any positive additions to our response capabilities. (portion redacted) If you would like to know the truth, the only negative response coming from anyone within the firehouse was why we are spending $150,000-180,000 on solar panels when we are purchasing used 1980s fire apparatus that have no modern pollution controls. Come out to the firehouse any morning around 9:00 am and watch the large plumes of exhaust coming from some of our fleet and you’ll understand. The firefighters of Bodega Bay Fire Protection District strongly support environmental conservation -- we recycle, we use energy efficient light bulbs, many of us drive fuel-efficient cars and we support the use of renewable energy. Our 8,800 sq ft fire station power bill sits around $500 dollars a month for 24/7, 365 use by several people and heavy equipment. I personally know individuals with over $500 a month electric bills for just their home.
What the firefighters don’t agree with is the “shoot from the hip” type spending on pet projects like the solar panels. Review the fire district board meeting minutes concerning this topic and you’ll see that in less that 4 months this went from an idea of one of our board members to seeking financing and commencing with the ground plans on this project. Many of our spending items and large projects can take many more months to years to come to fruition. This type of unplanned spending is not true to the spirit of Measure E which the tax payers overwhelmingly approved.
I would also ask of you to please review the original 2003 Mission and Vision Statements (or even our current versions), or reference the pamphlets that were sent to the public prior to Measure E, and passing by 73%. You will see that nowhere in those documents was anything about spending over $150,000 dollars on solar panels. You also won’t see anything about this project published in our “State of the District” letter that was recently mailed to the taxpayers of Bodega Bay.
I would like you to take another view. It’s difficult to understand the reasoning behind a purchase like this without first considering a few key issues. The district has been told that these panels will eventually return revenue – it’s optimistically estimated that this will occur in about 18 years, dependant on a projected 5% yearly increase in energy costs. The questions raised by the employees that have not received adequate answers are: What is the durability of the materials, and is there proof? Will the solar panel company warranty these materials until we make the money back? This has the very real potential of costing the tax payers in the long run as there are no firm guarantees in place.
Sixth: the district faces a large turn over of new employees. This is an absolutely a true statement. Every time a new employee is hired it costs the district money to put them through the hiring process and train them to our fire department standards. If you look at the numbers concerning employees you will find that two thirds of the fire district has “turned over” in the last three years. Two of the three employees who have been here for more than 5 years have dedicated 15 and 22 years of service to this community respectively. The raise for the firefighters is necessary Bodega Bay Fire Protection District employs the lowest paid firefighters in the county. Our union recently ran a salary survey on local fire districts, and this was used as our reference. It does not include city fire departments or departments outside of our county. The firefighters have been consistently losing ground on our wages, not even keeping up with the county cost of living increase. Per the U.S. Census Bureau Sonoma County’s median salary is $56,000. Our Firefighter/EMT’s base pay is at $33,000, and our Firefighter/Paramedics are at $42,000. Many of our firefighters have issues supporting their families and of the district’s previous firefighters many have left for higher paying careers as firefighters and ambulance workers elsewhere. Sonoma County is one of the most expensive to live in and we are the lowest paid firefighters. Currently none of our firefighters live in district, or could afford to, even with the boards live in district incentive.
Of the five ex-employees I’ve spoken in depth with about why they left, it always came down to the money. We all love Bodega Bay, and the citizens of our district (I’ve worked in fire and EMS for seven years in many different regions and I honestly haven’t served a more pleasant community.) If you speak with the new employees, we all enjoy the professional training we’ve received during our tenure with the District. The long term employees have a huge amount of knowledge about the fire service, EMS and district/community operations -- these pillars of your Fire District are valuable employees and are worth keeping around.
An argument could be made that the call volume in our District is not as high as some other fire districts in Sonoma County, and possibly that is why there is a high turnover. Or you could even go so far as to say that the districts call volume should dictate an employee’s salary. That argument does not hold water, because no matter what the call volume is, the risks involved in our job are always there. Injury, stress, and time away from your family are the same no matter where you work. A disaster could strike at any time, personally or community wide. That’s why we are here, that is why the community wants us to be here, and that is why Measure E was approved by an 73% majority.
The old image of firehouse guys sitting around playing pool is a fallacy. Our crews are constantly busy during the day. We are training and working around the station performing maintenance and improvement in all aspects of our operations. When the 9-1-1 call comes in at 2:00 am, you better believe we are there and we are all business. Professionalism is what the community asked for, and that is what the employees at this department deliver. Talk to the citizens who received our services. You’ll see.
Seventh: “Firefighter/Paramedic Joe Perez addressed the Board (sic) condemned the Board for irresponsible fiscal policy saying the firefighters deserved a raise.” This is absolutely false. I never condemned the board for being fiscally irresponsible; I believe the board is doing a great job of saving money. Financially, they are as sound as can be, with nearly three quarters of a million dollars in reserves in about three years time. I feel that this surplus doesn’t detract from a call for a living wage, but only encourages my appeal to the board about the firefighters deserving a raise. The community supported this by voting for Measure E. I hold the belief that this nearly three quarters of a million dollars surplus came at “on the backs” of the firefighters, and it is that issue to which I addressed the board with my comments. During my comments to the board, I reported that it was unethical for the employees to suffer the burden of the districts past financial issues, and then be ignored when massive surpluses arise. I stand by that statement. Every firefighter here has a family and wants to work, and we enjoy coming to work. But the wages are not conducive to living in Sonoma County. Many of us depend on working overtime or working a second or third job to make ends meet. Every firefighter puts in approximately 2000 hours a year or more while on duty at this fire district (most of us MUCH more) -- this lack of wages is not from a lack of working.
Eighth: “One board member, careful to not divulge matters deemed confidential acknowledged the pay raises ranged from 8 percent to 37 percent.” If this board member wasn’t to divulge confidential matters then why was this even printed? This 37% figure is false. 18% is in fact the largest raise, and whoever was the confidential source needs to get his or her figures correct before they offer out inaccuracies for the press to publish. It’s the job of a reporter to verify and fact check. This obviously was not done, to the detriment of our firefighters. I hope that you also consider looking into the pay increases of administration employees working for the district. This may provide further reference for this topic. I offer to the public and to the editor to come down to the Firehouse and ask any of us questions, firefighters or administration. Information will be provided that may change your mind on this situation. This is all of public record.
If you would like to see the real numbers proposed by the union perhaps you may wish to speak with the Union President before you publish your stories. I’ll say it again. These raises were brought on by the Fire Chief, and approved by the District’s Employee Relations Committee
To end this letter to the editor I wish to issue a challenge. I challenge this reporter to go out and investigate the story before an article is published. I challenge the editor to objectively look at all the facts and come to a conclusion that is unbiased and not jaded by previous experiences with the district, the board, the firefighters, or its administration. (Portion redacted). . .an obligation to public by seeking the truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. This is an obligation to the profession in which you are a part of and it should be taken seriously as such. I eagerly look forward to reading this in your “Letters to the Editor” and continue to anticipate any future stories you may publish.
Yours faithfully,
Joseph Ryan Perez, Firefighter/Paramedic, Ex- Bodega Bay Fire Protection District Employee
Editor’s reply: Portions of this letter were redacted because of a long-standing policy to not publish slander. After removing those portions the letter writer’s intentions and words remain clear. The redacted portions were about this editor.
Much of the letter addresses the issues surrounding the recent pay proposal that Perez clearly brings to light. However several issues he raises about the Navigator coverage need examination.
From the top: Perez questions how I could report a meeting without attending the meeting. Much of the report focused on the dynamics of the issue that led to the decision made at the meeting – almost all of that did not take place at the meeting. With the exception of Joe’s speech to the Board of Directors (which he summarizes here) much of the meeting was behind closed doors – far from my eyes or Joe’s eyes. Joe’s summary of his remarks to the Board is consistent with my reporting of his speech. The visitors gallery at the Congress would be impossibly crowded if every media outlet sent a reporter to every meeting. Yet media outlets routinely and accurately cover Congress and other legislative bodies.
Joe says the pay raise was never demanded. My language in the report should have made clear that the demand is a characterization of the initiative by the firefighters to the board. The Union and the District have a contract binding on both sides. When one side, before the end of the contract, wants to change the contract that is by definition a demand. My language did not make that clear. A process of negotiations, from the view of the information made public by the Fire District, was never started.
My language also did not make clear that the first mention of changing the labor contract was suggested by Chief Sean Grinnell.
Chief Grinnell said, since the meetings and the article was posted, that the cost savings envisioned by the proposal were dubious. There might be a cost savings if a position was created to share an employee, he said.
The “Board’s decision to install a solar system sparked the request for a pay raise.” The pay raise was already proposed by Grinnell, what was sparked by the solar system purchase was the aggressive campaign by the firefighters to get the pay raise approved by the Board.
Perez says, “The firefighters union never strongly opposed the tax break.” Firefighters spoke at the public Board of Directors meeting where the tax break was discussed and were strongly opposed.
“The apparent spending spree brought angry responses from firefighters.” Perez quotes the article. He implies that the firefighters were never angry about the spending. In the article I specifically did not quote my sources. I did that not because I was writing fiction but to protect my sources from the very thing Perez says he did in the first paragraph – confronting anyone involved trying to find my sources. In such a small environment as the Fire District, my reporting has to depend on who will speak with me and reliably relay information to me. My sources are reliable. Further, a summarization such as Perez quotes is the result of several sources and this reporter’s ears.
Perez quotes the article, “One board member, careful to not divulge matters deemed confidential acknowledged the pay raises ranged from 8 percent to 37 percent.” The Board member did not reveal the confidential matters, I did not report them. Payroll paid by public agencies, courts have ruled, are public matters. The Board has held several closed sessions, in my view illegally, that are not negotiations. My source affirmed the 37 percent figure when questioned in preparation for this Editor’s reply. Here I did identify the source and Perez chose to invalidate their information.
Much of Perez’s letter deals with the issues of salary level. I take no issue with that information. However the reader should consider a larger perspective. Over the past dozen years or so, paramedics became a scarce commodity. To meet staffing problems, large fire/ambulance jurisdictions have raised their compensation schedules, not just a little, but a lot. In comparison Bodega Bay is losing ground. I suggest that the firefighters approach this issue, not with the attitude that Bodega Bay Fire Directors are withholding pay raises, but with how could Bodega Bay meet a rising tide of compensation. With a relatively low level of emergency calls, the Union and the District need to work together to contain the cost of services. Bodega Bay does pay one of the highest taxes for fire protection in the state. The District also faces a cap on the tax money available to fund services.
With the exceptions I noted, the report was a fair and comprehensive account of the background and the dynamics of the decision to delay the pay raise. Perez is entitled to disagree with my characterizations and summaries. That disagreement does not make them incorrect or dubious – it is merely a disagreement.
Letter to the Editor:
[this letter was submitted to the Coastal Post, Editor]
Thanks to the Coastal Post, I can write to my community, which starts in West Marin and radiates outward. I can’t do this via my weekly community newspaper, the Point Reyes Light, because I have identified myself as a challenger to its editor, Robert Plotkin. He even removed my paid classified ad announcing a town meeting on the subject of “The Role of a Community Newspaper in Revolutionary Times.”
And now I am willing, albeit reluctantly, to take this whole thing to a new level. After talking to many, many local people l feel it is time to take some action as a community to express how we feel about the state of things at the Point Reyes Light. There is great discontent with the paper throughout the local towns that the Light traditionally served in West Marin. There is also a sentiment that we can’t do anything about the state of the Light and the mindset of the editor.
I disagree. I think it is time to TAKE BACK THE LIGHT and I am now initiating a focused protest on Monday, June 11, as TAKE BACK THE LIGHT DAY. If you have strong opinions about the Point Reyes Light, take your paper back to the editor at the office in Point Reyes Station and communicate verbally or in writing why you feel as you do. You can also mail your paper back with your comments to Box 210, Point Reyes Station 94956, if you find this easier.
Starting right now, with these words, I am willing to make this event common knowledge and encourage action in Point Reyes and Inverness where I circulate personally. It is not an easy thing to do; I really have no desire to engage Plotkin on this level or to make myself high profile in this manner. I have given it a lot of thought and been very tempted to surrender to the passivity of non-action and just keep on doing things that are “my life,” like making my garden beautiful and having time for my friends and family and being a helpmate to my partner, organic farmer Peter Worsley. I have plenty to do and lots of creative ferment inside me that wants to be expressed.
When I came back to Point Reyes in November of 2005, Plotkin had just taken over the Light and I looked forward to his era as an opportunity to write for the paper as an “out there” original thinker. I had just spent four years in Malibu where I wrote a weekly column called “Making Waves” for its local paper, The Surfside News. It gave me a lot of pleasure to surf the wild side of radical ideas for whomever was reading that paper and I imagined being able to take that even further for this community. Of course that was not of interest to Plotkin and my offers of participation were ignored and my letters to the editor never published. I could even say that my courage to take on the Light is fueled not by anger but by a true sadness that I can’t contribute to my own home town paper.
It’s a pleasure to return to the Coastal Post for freedom of expression, the paper that printed my first columns in the 1980s and helped me develop a style of writing that flourished in the “Making Waves” years. Don Deane has been an ally and friend for all these years and Jeanette Pontacq is a vibrant addition to the local journalism scene. This paper is alive and well and has all the potential in the world to keep on diversifying and experimenting. It is a good place to activate a show of defiance in the cause of restoring the symbol of the lighthouse to the Point Reyes Light. Our community needs a forum for its conversations with itself and for the news that is being generated by many dedicated souls who invigorate West Marin with their enterprise and cultural activities. We deserve better than we are being given and it is time to make that point loud and clear. Join me and make Monday, June 11, TAKE BACK THE LIGHT DAY. In revolutionary times, we must speak our truth and articulate our values and ideals…or we lose them. See you on the street!
Elizabeth Whitney, Point Reyes Station
Letter To The Editor:
Upon invading Iraq, the United States first of all "SECURED THE OIL FIELDS", reported early newspaper headlines.
Now the oil is being ripped off. In recent newspaper articles,
the theft
is loosly tied to all factions, but we all know it takes quite a bit of control
to steal several million dollars of Iraqi oil everyday and not get caught.
The facts quoted in the articles, summed up, seem to say they haven't got
a clue as to who is ripping this oil off.
Personally, I think Halliburton is talented at securing their portion
of profit from the war in Iraq, including some of the liquid black gold that
flows from Iraqi wells.
Halliburton holds most of the contracts having to do with oil development, rebuilding and production. They also have a bad history of sticking it to the United States on the contracts they held and have had to pay back millions of unearned dollars claimed.
Who is fooling who? This is a war about oil.... and run by oil people. Time to get out of Iraq.
Marsha Wilgis, Bodega Bay
Another letter about the Dark:
Posted May 3, 2007 -------- Elizabeth Whitney says so eloquently
what so many of us are feeling about the loss of our community newspaper.
I have lived in the San Geronimo Valley for most of the last 30 years, enjoying
all of West Marin in the process and also becoming an Inverness "weekender." Our
family no longer subscribes to the "Dark" for all of the reasons
that you have listed. There is plenty of news to be found in West Marin,
a thoughtful, innovative community full of interesting people and issues.
Mr. Plotkin absolutely does not "get it" nor does he show any prospect
of "getting it" in
the future. His attempt to placate the community by having community correspondents
just proves the point for me. For the Valley he chose the newcomer who commutes
to work in SF and whose article was primarily about the City not the Valley!
This was over two other prospects, one an established writer who expressed
a willingness to go out and get to know the Valley and the other a long-time
Valley resident, active in the community, whose article gave tantalizing
hints of her deep local knowledge, promising interesting articles to come.
Our communities here in West Marin need a good community news outlet. I hope
that something can be done.
Anne McClain, San Geronimo Valley
Musings on the Life and Death of The Point Reyes Dark
Note: The Navigator Online does not use the actual name of the newspaper involved in this op-ed but its antonym: Dark.
Posted April 30, 2007 -------- The Point Reyes Dark has been through a lot of changes lately, including a dramatic reworking of its image with a new logo and lots of color photographs on the front page. The biggest change, however, may be hardly noticeable to the average reader; it is a change in the phrase in the masthead that characterizes the newspaper.
The Point Reyes Dark originally called itself “West Marin’s Community Newspaper” a designation that held when Dave Mitchell bought the newspaper in 1974. After the awarding of the Pulitzer Prize to the Dark in 1979 for “meritorious public service” for flushing out the details of Synanon’s unsavory activities, the masthead stated that it was “West Marin’s Pulitzer Prize-Winning Newspaper.”
Now the redesigned Point Reyes Dark, under editor/publisher Robert Plotkin, has become “Marin’s Pulitzer Prize-Winning Newspaper.” There really is very little love for West Marin in the new Point Reyes Dark and considerable love for the Pulitzer Prize. It is always mentioned in Plotkin’s recruiting ads for interns and reporters (“You will be encouraged to win the Dark another Pulitzer”) and in the display advertising flyer he produced. In fact there is no such thing as the Point Reyes Dark; there is only the Pulitzer Prize-Winning Point Reyes Dark. (Sometimes he even writes it with the hyphen between Pulitzer and Prize.)
It was the romance of the Pulitzer Prize – the little newspaper that could – that has made all the comings and goings at the Dark since 1979 national news, putting Plotkin on the front page of the New York Times and in major features by the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Marin Independent Journal. The subsequent squabbles between Plotkin and Mitchell also made national news, the details of which are most interestingly told by Mitchell in his blog on www.sparselysageandtimely.com. Their legal struggle is still in process, so stay tuned.
But meanwhile, the subject that interests me is the emperor’s new clothes aspect of this Pulitzer Prize. First of all, where is it? It is not at the office of the Point Reyes Dark. It belongs to Dave Mitchell, who earned it. It belongs to a moment in time when the journalism elite and Synanon were deeply entangled in exposes and libel lawsuits and when Dave’s endless articles on Synanon in the Dark suddenly became relevant to that situation. The Pulitzer committee shone the spotDark on the Dark and the media loved it and Synanon began shriveling up as the Dark got lit up – and a lot of individual destinies took a turn around the wheel of karma.
Robert Plotkin showed up a year and a half ago just when Dave was ready to lay down the burden of weekly journalism and the legacy that the Dark had created for him. Plotkin thought he was buying the Pulitzer Prize-Winning Point Reyes Dark but there was no Pulitzer Prize, just a newspaper that before, during and after all that Synanon business was about town development and ranchers and tourists and 4-H kids and people being born and dying and businesses opening and closing and weather and land use and local elections and events at the community centers.
It was about the things that matter to a community that wants to know itself and even love its neighbors, if possible. It reflected the progression of a culture of young people becoming older people, the impact of the influx of idealistic twentysomething-year-olds who came in the late 60s and early 70s and, like a tidal wave, poured into all the nooks and crannies of the established, somewhat establishment, culture that pre-existed it.
It embraced and created controversy and even inspired a challenge in the form of a second newspaper emanating out of Point Reyes Station: the Tomales Bay Times. The TBT was an all-volunteer biweekly full of art and lively writing that published for a year exactly 30 years ago and was cherished by the community that it served. Mitchell’s fixation on Synanon had something to do with the sense of neglect many community participants felt for their news and felt strongly enough to commit to the rigors of producing 26 issues of a high-caliber alternative newspaper.
None of this lore is of interest to Robert Plotkin. The direction that he is taking the Dark is over the hill with token stories on towns that represent fresh advertising territory. His new design (courtesy of a graphics firm located in West Palm Beach, Florida – go figure) serves the purposes of a print medium info-mercial, not a newspaper. Certainly not a small town community newspaper.
All the writing is done by interns who come and go, taking their jazzy feature clippings with them to pave the way to better jobs on bigger newspapers. No one who works on the Dark has any perspective on any of the issues that mean anything to the people who truly live here, rooted, connected and committed to the land and each other. A meeting in Point Reyes Station last December challenged the editor of the Dark to listen to articulate and impassioned complaints of community members concerned that they were losing the soul of their newspaper in the hyperbole of Plotkin’s desire to create “the Sistine Chapel of journalism” (his phrase) with sensational and largely irrelevant stories. [A transcript of this meeting is available in all the West Marin libraries.]
Unfortunately, subsequent issues of Plotkin’s Dark stayed on the same track as before featuring long articles irrelevant to West Marin: one on starvation in Zambia and one on teenagers from Hunter’s Point in San Francisco attending a conference at the Marin Headlands. (What about our teenagers?) Two full-page features written by the editor described the graphic design firm from far-away Florida recruited to redesign the paper. The final straw, for many, was an article “outing” several Mexican residents by name and photograph, identified as undocumented. A letter reacting to this was signed by 40 Hispanic community members, business and town activists and Father Jack O’Neill of Sacred Heart Church in Olema. Father O’Neill was appalled when asked by reporter Micah Maidenberg, “What percentage of the Spanish-speak parish is undocumented?” This letter appeared in the April 19 issue of the Dark.
As I write this, the wheel is still in spin and it is not clear what the local community will do about losing their newspaper. For some who are more recently arrived, it may not seem an important loss or may be chalked up to the way of the world when intimate businesses get eaten by corporate chains every day. Others consider they have informally boycotted the paper by not buying or re-subscribing or even reading it.
As “West Marin’s Community Newspaper” slowly dies, it is easy to forget it ever existed. It is hard to remember the power of a truly tuned-in local paper, like the TBT, and only those who were actually around 30 years ago remember the vibe of that era. But I remain hopeful that those who do will verify that what came forth in the magical year 1976-1977 was the inherent richness of the community responding to the spirit of receptivity offered by the creators of the newspaper. The richness of talent and imagination and enthusiasm is still here, perhaps even in greater supply, and there is no reason why it can’t emerge again under different circumstances. Maybe it’s not too late to see the Darkhouse – and all that it symbolizes – back in the masthead of the Point Reyes Dark.
Elizabeth Whitney, Point Reyes Station
Elizabeth Whitney was Assistant Editor of the Point Reyes Dark in 1973-74 under the owner previous to Dave Mitchell (Mike Gahagan) and Coordinating Editor of the Tomales Bay Times. She wrote a column in the Coastal Post for many years and was most recently a columnist for the Malibu Surfside News (2001-2005). She now lives in Point Reyes Station. She can be reached at t i m e b a n d i t 1 5 @hotmail.com. Remove the spaces to send email.
Navigator editor notes: The Navigator is assembling a list of those wishing to support and contribute to an alternative to the Dark. Use the email form below.
Send a letter, a comment or a calendar listing to the editor!
Click here for letters from the past
