Supervisor raises

To the Editor:

Our supervisors recently gave themselves a 27 percent raise because the grand jury suggested they were underpaid, based on salary earnings among boards in comparable counties. Here’s a thought: what if the salaries in those are seriously overstated? As the financial axe swings to and fro, our county struggles to maintain support for core programs like the Library, recreation department and the senior center. These cuts adversely affect many more lives than those of this handful of poor “underpaid” county representatives.

The justification for this obscene raise is that higher pay will attract “more qualified” candidates. Based on the collection of obnoxious roadside clutter that abuses the eye and boggles the brain at election time, we definitely don't need more aspirants, and one could infer by definition that this crop of supes is under qualified because they “only” make $40k yearly. So now they get a raise?

Does anyone really believe that these folks would quit, giving up their current salaries if they don’t get a 27 percent raise? Of course not. I think the supes shunted this over to the grand jury anticipating the outcome, then voted themselves the raise without guilt or shame because they said ok.

This board has painted a bleak monetary picture, and despite that voted in favor of themselves instead of the interests of the people. I find it unconscionable that they’d even consider a raise right now. It should be returned to the county coffers — it’s the right thing to do — and they certainly won’t starve making $40k.

As for the “more qualified”, history has shown us that voters, when presented with numerous good choices, often fail to recognize the more competent candidates anyway, as sorely evidenced by 2016’s jaw-dropping, eye-opening presidential election process.

Shannon Mills


Sonora leaders aren’t negotiators

To the Editor:

Mr. Olivieri wrote about the City of Sonora giving away City Property to private business. I can’t agree more.

Recently the city council voted to allow a new development on Green Street to permanently use portions of a city-owned parking lot on Green street without any monetary benefit to the city. They allowed a building contractor to use 14 city permitted parking spaces for seven months for free while others had to pay $22.50 per month.

At a time when parking is at a premium the City Manager said that he was considering making the city permitted parking lot on Green street a free city lot which would directly benefit the new development.

The city council can sure make a sweet deal. They paid $1,624,000 for the gas station property on Mono way and all they got was one lane of roadway. The private party gets to keep the car wash and the canopy.

David Morgan


Growing pot outside

To the Editor:

District 2 Supervisor Randy Hanvelt says that the growing of marijuana outside should be banned because some people have a physical reaction to it. If that’s the case then to be fair you would have to ban all kinds of things. For example no rose bushes can be grown outside. I know people who have a physical reaction to those — also live oak — My dad was very allergic to that. How about beekeepers? They can’t have their hives outside because one of my best friends could die in minutes if she gets stung. What if a grower has a very small house but it sits on five acres? Growing outside would probably be better for them. It’s not the grower’s fault for someone else’s reaction to marijuana. Is Skippy or JIF being penalized because someone has an allergy to peanuts?

Maureen E. Graham