Page 2: How do you want it?
As we got closer to the California Fish and Game Commission hearings which were held in Mammoth on June 10 and 11, I started getting phone calls and emails from a man named Randal Massaro.
Massaro is a huge bobcat activist and wanted to be sure I would be covering the Commission hearings, as bobcat trapping regulations would be on the agenda and his group was vehemently opposed to the hunting of bobcats.
Massaro told me he was a Hollywood actor and that he appreciated my support – though I had not said a damn thing in the conversation. Maybe he is an actor, I thought. I can’t get a word in edgewise.
*Note: I had Vane check the imdb website just now to see if Massaro had any acting credits. She came up empty.
Massaro then insinuated that if I took his side on the bobcat issue, he would introduce me to some of his Hollywood friends, like Lorenzo Lamas.
Lunch: Lorenzo Lamas? Of Falcon Crest?
The very one. My sister would be jealous when she heard this one.
Anyway, Vane reported on the bobcat discussion of June 11. 70 people gave public comment on the issue. The bobcat activists packed the place. The Commissioners were non-plussed. A decision on the issue is expected at an F & G Commission hearing on August 5.
The next week, my inbox was stuffed with emails from Massaro, and various submitted pictures sent with the heading “Warriors.”
On Monday or Tuesday, a man named Micah Raimo called. He said that I should disregard printing any missives sent by Massaro. Massaro’s emails, by the way, are always written entirely in capital letters.
Raimo said that it was his job to edit and rework Massaro’s submissions into any form the newspaper desired.
Sheet: Wow, that’s quite an offer.
Raimo: I can make it a news story if you like, or an opinion piece.
Sheet: Why don’t we make it an opinion piece?
Given that Massaro and Raimo were clearly members of an advocacy group, an op/ed seemed most appropriate.
Raimo: Oh, okay. That works. The Mammoth Times asked for a news story.
Sure enough, a front page “news” story appeared in the Times last week on bobcats. The byline was Grasseschi’s. It’s uncleasr how much of the story was hers and how much was spoonfed by Massaro and Raimo. I have a guess about that, but … you know what I think.
As if on cue, I received two more emails this week from members of advocacy groups. And they’re not just press releases where both parties acknowledge the transaction that’s occurring [FREE CONTENT! NO NEED TO PAY ANYONE TO ACTUALLY WORK!]. Rather, they’re all submitted as “news” stories that we news types have the privilege of sharing with our readers at no charge.
This is where it’s heading, folks. But I have no idea what the news aggregators are gonna aggregate once the lobbyists have eviscerated what’s left of journalism with their gonorrhea-laden press releases.
Regarding the Let Mammoth Decide voter initiative … I don’t see it as a threat to democracy as we know it.
Rather, I see it as an opportunity.
Once Town Council is done whining about the unfairness of having its authority usurped, the hope here is that they will craft an alternative plan/vision to present to the voters. So if you vote against the initiative, at least you know what you would be voting for.
I would think that at least two ideas would be incorporated into any alternate plan:
1.) A homeowner who wishes to rent their home on a nightly basis would need permission/approval from each of his/her immediate neighbors, or neighbors who live within a certain radius from the residence (50 feet? 100 feet?)
2.) There would be some type of “three strikes” rule in place where three complaints would trigger an automatic review of a property’s business license. In other words, if I grant my neighbor the right to rent his home out and then it turns into a nightmare, I have a corrective option available to me.
Finally, it would seem logical that if my neighbor were renting his place out and I were bearing the burden of some of the associated costs (increased traffic, noise, et. al.), that I would also be entitled to a percentage of the take. Why should the Town get to benefit 100% from the T.O.T. collected? This would also be a boon to tax collection and enforcement. If I have a financial stake in my neighbor’s tax reporting, I might keep a closer eye on what he’s doing.
While that may sound a bit Big Brother-ish, if you’re gonna turn your home into a business you naturally forfeit some of your rights of privacy.
MUSD Closed Session report: On Thursday evening, Mammoth Unified School District reported out of closed session that the Board has authorized Superintendent Lois Klein to prepare an extended lease amendment proposal for the Ice Rink property to the Town of Mammoth Lakes. The details of such a proposal were not disclosed.
Board President Shana Stapp said, “The lease has been in place for more than eight years, and both the Board of Education and Superintendent support the need for a covered ice rink and want to continue to collaborate with the Town.”
The Board also said it has discussed selling the property versus leasing it, but the Town would have to bid competitively for it in such a scenario.
Corrections
In James’ “McAteer Opposition Peters out at ICSOS Meeting” story last week, Bishop resident Gary Colbert, not Greg Colbert, made comments at the June 16 Inyo County Superintendent of Schools (ICSOS) Board of Trustees meeting in Independence.
In Vane’s “Developer Ready?” last week, housing mitigation fees are not required by the Mitigation Fee Act, AB 1600, as her article stated.
AB 1600 requires the Town to prepare a nexus study in order to impose an impact fee on new development, such as a housing mitigation fee, which would go toward defraying the cost of public improvements, services, and/or amenities needed because of new development.
However, according to Mammoth Lakes Housing (MLH) Executive Director Jennifer Halferty, the Town has chosen to redesign its housing ordinance away from an inclusionary policy (meaning developers must build affordable housing units at a project’s site) and toward a housing mitigation fee policy which must be in-line with the Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600).
The housing mitigation fee is not required by state law to target households at or below 60% AMI, as Vane’s article implied. That is a Town policy direction. Halferty said the Town can amend its focus for the fee at any time within the confines of political will and, then that direction must be supported by a nexus study.
The Town also does not only target households earning 60% AMI, but a range between 60-150%AMI. In the draft fee structure, the Town has agreed to accept responsibility to address 70% of the demand created by those earning 60% and below of the AMI.
However, according to Town Senior Planner Jen Daugherty, the development community would still be responsible for the remaining 30% of that demand, and would also be required to mitigate a portion of the demand generated by those who earn between 60% and 150% AMI.
