Letters to the editor: No new buffer

Staff Writer
Mount Shasta Herald

At the April 8 city council meeting pro-cannabis speakers, including 3 from Jefferson Soul, projected their own behavior onto the opposition with accusations of promoting propaganda, bullying, fear-mongering, and bringing in outside money even though that repeatedly has been shown to be false! They criticized the opposition as being too anonymous. What do they expect when they issue threats and harass, of which they also accused the opposition? Then Jefferson Soul had the audacity to say “let’s all work together with unity and co-exist peacefully together.”

They repeatedly claimed that those against lowering the buffer zone are in the minority. When I spoke, I noted most people in the room were against lowering the buffer zone (40 had spoken opposed and eight for). Two speakers did not offer an opinion: one talked about the benefits of cannabis and, unbelievably, the other said the I Am School should never have been allowed in the industrial zone for the last 22 years replacing a school at that location for the previous 10 years. I explained that those opposed always have been in the majority at previous cannabis meetings: the city planner’s December presentation, the planning commission meeting, and the previous city council meeting. Barbara Wagner’s response to that was astonishing. Casting all logic and statistical analysis aside, she kept stating they had to serve a larger group who were not present in the room. It is well known that when a large number of people come out for or against something they do in fact represent respective groups not present. Wagner, Collings and Redmond were already determined to reduce the buffer regardless of how the majority felt.

We pleaded in various ways with the city council to invoke the precautionary principle, but like so many before them they ignored us and reduced it to 450 feet. What’s next, 250 feet, zero?

Betty Kreeger

Mount Shasta