| Was the City of Redding planning to take away our right to vote? |
| Call your City Council Members and tell them you support the Safe Water Initiative (Measure A)! They need to know your opinion! Pat Kight, Mayor 225-4447 Dave McGeorge 225-4447 Mary Stegall 225-4447 Michael Pohlmeyer 225-4447 Mark Cibula 225-4447 |
| On Friday, June 14, 2002, City Manager Mike Warren, City Attorney Len Wingate and the City Clerk, meet with Citizens for Safe Drinking Water (CSDW) Chairmain Michel Czehatowski, Member Betty Doty and National Representative Jeff Green to inform them that they were concerned about the "legality" and confusing wording of the Safe Water Petition and, that as an option, the City Council could put another inititiative on the ballot. This came as a surprise to the the CSDW since the City Attorney previously read, reviewed, and approved our petition in November of last year by writing the ballot title and summary for the petition. Futhermore, the City Council had been presented with the chance to review the document but declined. Why the turn around at this time? A CLARIFICATION OF CSDW POSITION CSDW clarified that the Safe Water Inititative does not specifically prohibit fluoride being added to the City Water. If the City wants to add fluoride, they just have to have approval from the FDA that the product they intend to use is safe for the stated health claims. They must also show that the product does not contain any contaminants (e.g., lead, cadmium, or arsenic) and is safe for all levels of consumption for all age ranges. If they cannot find a product that meets these criteria then it can not be added to the water. THE WORD 'FLUORIDE' Wingate also expressed his preference that citizens vote for or against "fluoride", however, when Czehatowski pointed out that the fluoride in toothpaste, bottled water, and at the dentist is different than the chemical the city would like to put in the water, Wingate stated he "didn't know" there were different types of fluoride. He thought it was all one and the same substance. It was then pointed out that if the word "fluoride" was to be used in a vote , the type of fluoride to be used must be put on the inititative, (e.g., industrial grade hydrofluorosilic acid, sodium fluoride, etc) in order not to deceive the public It was also pointed out that this initiative harmonizes with State law that mandates fluoridation in communities with over 10,000 water hookups. Voting for or against fluoridation would conflict with State law. WHAT'S GOING ON? The intent of the meeting appeared that the City wanted CSDW to withdraw their inititative and allow the city to write their own, on their own terms. However, the CSDW can not legally withdraw or modify the Intiative since they are representing the voters who signed it. Furthermore, CSDW feels that the Inititative clearly protects citizens from having unregulated chemicals dumped into the drinking water for the intent of medically treating people. While the City Attorney thought it was a confusing document it must be noted that over 6,700 citizens who signed the document weren't confused and want to vote on it. WHAT'S NEXT? The question is "Will the City try to prevent the Citizens from Voting?" The initiative process is designed for the purpose of allowing citizens to vote on important issues. Since we complied with the law in gathering the signatures we should be able to exercise our right to vote. THE OUTCOME AS OF JUNE 19, 2002 City Manager, Mike Warren called member Betty Doty and stated that after further review, the City Attorney decided that the Safe Water Initiative was legal. It will be presented to the City Council as an option to either be voted on by the people or made binding law by Council action. |
| Vote Yes! on A November 5, 2002 |