Marin IJ Readers Forum August 23, 2022 – Marin Independent Journal

Protect the headwaters of the creek through Muir Woods

More than a century ago, my grandfather, a Republican politician of a different era and stripe, along with his lifelong mentor and friend, Theodore Roosevelt, and his friends Ansel Adams, William Kent, and John Muir recognized the profound beauty and significance of Marin County. .

They won the political support to found what became the Muir Woods National Monument. They recognized that the natural gifts to the people of Marin should be revered and preserved as an ecologically sacred place for all Americans. Based on this tradition, I wish to express my concerns regarding Weissman’s (Dipsea Ranch) construction proposal for Scenic Highway 455 (“Marin Judge Forces Reexamination of Mt. Tam project”, January 21).

Based on these serious concerns, I humbly request Marin’s supervisors to remedy the following county shortcomings:

• He did not analyze the illegally modified firewall route.

• It did not analyze the project drainage through a critical wetland conservation area.

• He did not explain where the excess fill will be deposited.

Due to the severity of this issue and this property’s proximity to Redwood Creek, such a release of hazardous materials would be devastating to Redwood Creek, a critically endangered body hanging by a thread.

Years ago I used to run along the creek every January and watch the salmon return upstream to spawn. Now the depth of the creek is so shallow (due to wider environmental factors) that the salmon population has been greatly reduced. In fact, it has been virtually eliminated. I ask every supervisor, as well as the Marin Community Development Agency, to take these concerns to heart and preserve a unique national treasure that our ancestors and the federal government have been trying to preserve since the 1880s. a century and a half ago.

—Edward Hyman, Muir Beach

Lawns should be removed from landscapes

I hope all of our towns in Marin County will commit to removing lawns from landscapes.

Grass is useless in our ecosystem. It actually hurts our pollinators, who need good native plants and flowers. Hardscapes can be used instead of grass, and we would save a lot more water.

Let’s do better for our department and our planet.

—Ginny Erwin, Sausalito

Proposition 27 deserves a vote no in November

The confusing barrage of “Yes to 27” ads assume Californians are ignoring the hard-fought covenants written 50 years ago to govern tribal games. A yes vote reverses existing obligations, reducing income for all tribes. Newly available online gaming revenue will go to huge out-of-state gaming operations that individually dwarf local casinos many times over.

Tribal gambling in California dates back to the 1960s. This federal issue spilled over into the state, which had no legally recognized tribes or tribal lands. Tribal lines were greatly diffused through intermarriage during the Spanish Mission era. The original tribal lands had long been sold, annexed and developed.

New legal constructs have been created as remedies. The Californian tribes have become “bands”. References to original tribal origin were allowed, but they were secondary. Likewise, tribal lands became “rancherias”, acknowledging intermarriage and cultural appropriation of missionary settlements. Since not all bands could claim what was not available, the state allocated land previously severed from tribal use. These negotiated settlements were not perfect. Future wealth was determined by location. Luck of the draw, history, and willingness to take risks were key to a group’s eventual success and institutional richness.

Gambling pacts negotiated 50 years ago allowed card games, slot machines and off-track betting. Sports books were banned.

Outside Proposition 27 entities want to provide sportsbooks, even though it will continue to be illegal in tribal casinos. Considering that all tribes started off poor, the idea of ​​weeding out wealthy tribes is a misleading construct. Online games are bleeding patronage – a loss of revenue for “bricks and mortar” gambling operations. Large farms are most at risk. Many have development construction projects with funding secured using revenue projections that would be bled. I urge everyone to vote no on Proposition 27.

—Steve Pollock, San Rafael

Comments are closed.