Synonyms: correct, right
For those who have been involved it the 22 year search for a permanent location for the Redding Gun Club, the abrupt cancellation of the application for BLM land by the new area manager, Steve Anderson, is beyond disappointing; it is maddening.
The Walker Mine location was first suggested in 1991, the first hearing was held in 1993, and the acquisition process was initiated in 1996. Repeatedly, BLM officers have given encouragement and assurance that the project should succeed.
Club members have invested thousands of dollars worth of surveying including aerial photography, contour mapping, civil engineering in site development and creation of architectural model, road re-alignment and staking to satisfy requirements as they arose, and scores of meetings and phone conferences.
That was all wiped out at a stroke by Anderson, who had been on the scene less than four weeks. It suggests that he did not only bring "new eyes" to the project, but comes with an attitude, and perhaps an agenda.
Among the problems Anderson cites is the fact that land values have increased. That is unsurprising in view of the many years of delays occasioned by the BLM.
He anticipates objections to increased traffic from residents in the general area. In my years on the Planning Commission I learned that every development involving road improvements invariably brought objections to increased traffic. However, in a time of increasing population, a rule of reason must apply.
There has to be a limit to the restriction which those who want to preserve solitude can impose on the uses of other properties. If such objectors had absolute veto power on development during the past century, Redding would still be in the horse and buggy era.
Weighing all the factors among the conflicting interests, decisions must be prudent, based on the greater good for the greater number, with the foreknowledge that results are certain to displease someone.
Anderson repeatedly refers to the land sale as to a "private" purchaser. The Redding Gun Club is not a governmental agency. It is a non -profit community use recreational and educational organization. It has been an on-going entity for 72 years. There are no owners nor stockholders. The firing range facilities are available for use by the public at large. That will include city police, county sheriff and California Highway Patrol officers for their required training. That surely takes the club range out of the purely "private" category .
In regard to noise, the nearest occupied dwelling is one mile away, and none will ever be built closer to the range. The proposed future Sacramento River hiking trail is more than one-half mile from the range at its closest point. Those distances must be viewed in perspective.
During the decades that the Redding Gun Club occupied the Benton site, it was one-half mile from Mercy Hospital. The Mercy Medical Director told me that to his knowledge there had never been a complaint from patients or staff in regard to gunfire sound. The firing range was one mile from Shasta County Offices and Court House. Administrative and judicial functions had been unaffected by noise.
Anderson cites "policy" against private inholdings surrounded by BLM land. However policies are guidelines, not laws to be rigidly applied to all. Based on the circumstances, administrators can employ discretion in making decisions, and permit exceptions. In this situation, the surrounding buffer zone of BLM land is not a defect, but it is a valuable feature. It will prevent residential encroachment of the sort that will cause closure of the Record range before very long.
If a single BLM functionary can arbitrarily brush aside the previous actions by BLM and Gun Club personnel, the system cannot be working properly. In my view, the Gun Club has become the victim of an exercise in bureaucratic obstructionism.
An appeal to reverse this decision has been made to the BLM. It is urgent that the City and County officials support the effort.
June 2004
There has been only limited public discussion of Proposition 54, which prohibits state and local governments from categorizing people by race, ethnicity or national origin. It contains specific exemptions in law enforcement and medical situations. Despite that, opponents claim that without racial labeling, disease processes would remain undiagnosed and untreated.
As a physician, I can state that diagnoses and treatment decisions are never based solely on group identity, but on individual patient history, physical examination and laboratory findings.
Many opponents seem to be those ideologues who insist that race, gender and ethnicity determine everything: one's role in life, experiences, victimhood, beliefs and attitudes. Humans have been enthusiastically mixing their genes throughout all history, so group boundaries are indistinct, and happily will become increasingly irrelevant.
If a private employer seeks racial or ethnic data on job applicants, severe penalties will ensue, for the evil of racism. Why should it be viewed as good and wholesome when government applies racial categorizations, which eventually result in treating citizens unequally before the law?
I think it is folly for government to concentrate on the superficialities of color and ethnicity, and hope that greater social harmony will result. In actual fact, it perpetrates divisiveness, aggravating group resentments and hostilities.
Government should get out of the practice of race labeling.
Vote "yes" on Proposition 54.
October 2003
Editor: The article, "Oscar victors pave way for minorities," is troubling. It implies strongly that nonwhite performers have been systemically excluded from Academy Awards because of race. That thesis seems difficult to sustain, given the overwhelmingly liberal makeup of the entertainment industry.
We are informed that Halle Berry's father is black, and her mother is white. Why then is it necessary to identify her as "black" rather than white? Isn't it enough to honor her as a talented actress who performed a role brilliantly?
This instant and pervasive race labeling is unpleasantly reminiscent of the bad old days in the segregated South, where "one drop of black blood" made one black, regardless of ancestry. Even worse was the obscenity of apartheid in South Africa, where fractional race ancestry determined one's occupation, place to live and even spouse.
I think that racism as an inflammatory and divisive issue is perpetuated more by those who persist in categorizing everyone in our society by racial/ethnic labels, groups with competing claims for advantage, than it is by the idiot fringe of skinheads and white supremacists.
Berry won because she was good, not because she was either black or white or in between.
March 2002
