Letters to the Editor
Who’s afraid of the Big Bad Z?
Dear Editor,
What are the anti-Z’s afraid of? If you read The Sheet, you know that the hysteria and misinformation from the anti-Z group has reached a new and fevered pitch.
The latest personal attack came two weeks ago in a letter in The Sheet, where a local lawyer equated a YES on Measure Z to Nazism. To fully understand the nature of this vitriol, we need to quickly remember what Measure Z does:
A YES on Z only means that if nightly rentals are going to be expanded into residential zones, that the people will have the right to vote on it first. A YES gives the people the RIGHT TO VOTE. Period. Measure Z does NOTHING else, not a thing.
As explained by the Town Attorney to the Town Council in public session, Measure Z “does NOT change the zoning code,” it does NOT deal with ANY properties outside of the residential zones, it does NOT lock anything in forever, it does NOT touch the commercial or resort zones, and it does NOT restrict the Town Council from doing a single thing other than requiring them to ask the voters permission before expanding nightly rentals into residential zones. So what are the anti-Z’s so afraid of? The PEOPLE???
Sincerely,
Tom Gaunt
Not me
Dear Editor,
I was reading last Saturday’s edition of the Sheet and was surprised to learn that I gave a “fairly impassioned speech” at a recent PUC public hearing about the upcoming transfer of phone & internet service from Verizon to Frontier, and Verizon’s poor track record of service to the Hammil Valley area of Mono County (see “Verizon Pleads Poverty” by Mike Bodine).
Since I was not able to attend said meeting, I can only imagine that some other speaker was misidentified as me.
Catherine Cannon
Hammil Valley
Editor’s reply: Ms. Cannon had submitted a letter to the Commission, which was read by someone else at the event. She may not have been the speaker, but they were her words.
Democracy at its finest
Dear Editor,
I’ve enjoyed the lively debate on single family rentals in your recent editorial and letters sections. If nothing else, it’s been entertaining for the little people in town, who work for a living, to watch Mammoth’s wealthy and well-connected engage in some good old fashioned name calling and mud slinging – American democracy at its finest.
Also, kudos on your lengthy editorial last issue on the Grand Jury report; it was well worth the two cups of coffee I required to read in its entirety. We should name a local park or something after Jenny Im, Susan Cash, and the rest of the TOML “revenue team” for having the integrity and courage to stand up to their bosses in the spirit of transparent and lawful government.
I actually think Measure Z and the Grand Jury report are closely related, and this relationship is why I will be voting Yes on Z.
To their credit, people on both sides of Measure Z have elaborated convincing arguments for and against expanding nightly residential rentals. But one issue that hasn’t been brought up in the debate is that many of us just don’t trust our local leaders to make intelligent, transparent and forward-thinking decisions on our behalf.
There is a storied history of bungling backroom deals and quiet quid pro quo in our local government, which has achieved sub-optimal results for those of us who just want to work, live, recreate, and perhaps raise a family, in a quiet mountain town. The obvious example here is the airport debacle, in which those responsible got reelected or promoted, while the rest of us were left financing the lifestyle of some wealthy investors with our tax dollars for the next two decades.
The Grand Jury report reveals that we haven’t learned our lesson. Until local government leadership can demonstrate that they make fair and transparent decisions that are in the long-term best interest of the people they serve, I see no reason why we should trust them with power to make decisions that will transform the character of our neighborhoods.
Dan Flynn
Mammoth Lakes
Refuting Bailey
Dear Editor,
As family members accused by Bishop Paiute Development Corporation (BPDC) Director Gloriana Bailey of making “unrealistic claims” to land located behind the Paiute Palace Casino, we are writing to correct misinformation provided by her regarding the Paiute Palace Casino and hotel expansion. Gloriana’s letter “Fueling Our Own Economic Destiny” appeared in the Aug. 1, 2015 edition of the Sheet.
Mrs. Bailey was “perturbed” by journalist Mike Bodine questioning the BPDC and the Tribal Council’s decision to expand the casino (see article “A Bigger Place to Gamble” the Sheet, July 4, 2015).
While extolling the virtues of the BPDC and the Tribal Council as benevolent employers and community supporters, she fails to address the fact that in 2013 the tribal members voted down casino expansion. Nonetheless, the $30 million project is going ahead as a unilateral Tribal Council/ BPDC decision. In short, the very community she claims to be helping decided long ago that it did not want or need a bigger casino.
Gloriana expends a great deal of energy lauding her own professional and employment history, while failing to support her claims with fact and documentation. Her comments on Indian Law, tribal land status and my family’s right to land on North Pa Ha Lane are part of a long line of Bishop Paiute tribal officials presenting as indisputable fact their personal positions on tribal matters. Gloriana also is engaging in a familiar tactic of smearing my family’s name to distract from the reality that the Tribal Council has participated in the illegal acquisition of tribal member land assignments.
In her letter, Ms. Bailey plays semantics with Mike Bodine’s use of the word “taken” in reference to my family’s land. She indicates that since my family does not own the land in fee simple status, it is incorrect to claim it was taken or stolen.
In fact the federal government holds the title to all reservation land. Therefore, what individual tribal members own is a legal right to occupy, possess and make day-to-day decisions on the land. We can build, clear land, plant, graze livestock, park cars on and play baseball upon it if we like. As long as we do not abandon the land or use if for an illegal purpose, we can do as we wish. No, we can’t sell it. However we do absolutely say it is our land, since our family has had possession, cared for it, and maintained livestock fences for 73 years.
As descendants of an original assignment holder, our family has preference rights to the land. This right supersedes those of the Tribal Council or the BPDC. Our tribal land ordinance has no provision for anything remotely like public domain, and therefore our family rights remain intact.
However, on July 10, 2014, tribal police, tribal employees from the public works department and the BPDC descended en masse on our family’s land assignment. With around 20 men and heavy equipment they destroyed our livestock fence and installed their own 6-foot high chain link fence across our land. My sister, my aunt and my mother – tribal elders – stood in front of the heavy equipment along with my brother and me, clutching the fence as tribal workers systematically tore it down around us and left it in a tangled pile. The experience was like losing a family member.
Gloriana speaks of federal Indian law as if there were one all-encompassing “book” of law governing all the tribes in the US. Actually, Indian Law is a collection of treaties, court cases and constitutions that reflect the vast diversity of tribal relations with the federal government. In terms of land issues, the Bishop Paiute Tribe’s law is the Ordinance Governing Assignments on Bishop, Big Pine and Lone Pine Reservations (1962 Ordinance) Contrary to Gloriana’s claim that the Bishop Tribal Council can do whatever it wants with tribal land, it is bound by this ordinance.
Gloriana states, “The Napoles family signed legal agreements to exchange land parcels in 2006.” Her statement is an absolute lie. We challenge Gloriana Bailey and the Tribal Council to produce any document signed by any family member indicating a land exchange took place.
What Gloriana refers to as a legal agreement is actually an internal letter signed by 2006 Tribal Chairman Gerald Howard to the tribe’s assignment committee claiming that, in a closed-door meeting, a land assignment exchange took place between Mark Napoles and the Council. We do not deny that a meeting took place but do assert that no land exchange was discussed or agreed upon. The Tribal Chairman’s action is counter to any provision in the ‘62 Ordinance and lacks the requisite documentation that supports every legitimate tribal land assignment exchange. It lacks meeting minutes, as well as a tribal council motion or resolution indicating a council vote and decision. It lacks the standard 15 day public posting for assignments and exchanges. It lacks the approval of the Owens Valley Board of Trustees required by the 1962 Ordinance provision on assignment exchanges. Furthermore, Mark as a first time assignment applicant did not possess any land to begin with thus it was impossible for him to exchange something that he did not have. On top of that, our family was never made aware of the Chairman Howard’s letter until 2013 when our land appeared as part of the Tribal Council’s casino expansion plans. From 2006-2014 we continued as we had since 1941 to possess, occupy and maintain the land, while the Council made no claim or action to take possession. Gerald Howard is presently serving again as Tribal Chairman. When questioned on the legality of his actions and lack of supporting documentation of his letter he declared that he could obtain affidavits from 2006 Tribal Council members. If affidavits are ever actually produced it will have been nearly a decade after the alleged exchange.
Paiute Palace Casino expansion is not about jobs, economic independence, or our destiny; it is about a fantasy—an image of a monthly multi-thousand dollar check in every tribal mailbox. It is about the illusion of success without genuine work and sacrifice. For the community our tribe is an example of sovereign immaturity that usurps the rights and authority of its own people.
Laurine Napoles, Janice Geradine Pasqua, Debra Williams, Rick Napoles, Ron Napoles
Info: SaveNorthPaHa at Facebook.
The 1962 Ordinance can be viewed at http://www.bishoppaiutetribe.com
No morphine for this headache
Dear Editor,
You know it’s sad when you want to address the issues that Mammoth has to deal with, and all you get is name-calling in response. Mr. Martino (see letter in Aug. 29 issue] has given me the opportunity to roll around with him in the mud, calling me a liar, and presenting almost nothing of value about Measure Z.
For example, he says I would support the completely unregulated sale of marijuana in Mammoth Lakes, when what I have actually said repeatedly is that our system of close and careful regulation of marijuana stores here, created and implemented by the Town Council, is a demonstration of what the Council can do, and a terrific success. My wife and I have supported this community faithfully with our time and our money; I don’t need to put up with that kind of garbage from Gregg Martino. What I hear is that when you wrestle with pigs, you get all muddy, and the pig enjoys it. With that in mind, I’ll pass on refuting each one of Martino’s allegations, suffice to say they are not true.
By contrast, there was another letter in the paper last week by Mary Heller, a woman we all respect enormously. Her letter was thoughtful, heartfelt, and raised issues that deserve serious consideration. I totally get where the LMD folks and Mary are coming from and I am completely sympathetic to their concerns. Nobody wants hordes of insane tourists running rampant in their neighborhoods and running over their children with cars or snowmobiles during drunken orgies. But is that really what we are facing?
Mr. Martino says his goal is “protecting the current way of life in Mammoth in all residential neighborhoods.” What a hero. Martino would have you believe the Council is threatening to make all nightly rentals everywhere perfectly legal, and change our way of life. Of course, Mr. Martino is being totally false, no one on the Council has said any such thing or even contemplates such a thing. What the Council has said is that they have no intention of passing anything that would infringe in any way on existing CC&R’s, so the Knolls and Trails and like neighborhoods will be completely unaffected. With respect to neighborhoods that don’t have CC&R’s, the Council will consider some kind of a heavily regulated pilot program to see if a few nightly rentals can work, as they announced at the Council meeting Wednesday.
To use a medical analogy for Mary, Measure Z is like a person who comes into the ER with a headache and is given a shot of morphine. Will that get rid of the headache? You bet. But it is generally recognized that it would be overkill.
In this case, Measure Z will prohibit Council from opening up all of Mammoth to allowing an unlimited number of nightly rentals in areas now zoned against, which no one on the Council wants anyway; but sadly, it will also prohibit the Council from doing a much discussed, carefully thought out, heavily regulated and limited approach to nightly rentals without a $20,000 vote of the public.
Perhaps an even better question is, what will Measure Z do in the fight against illegal rentals. The clear answer is absolutely nothing. Measure Z is the equivalent of prohibition. We know how well that worked with alcohol and with marijuana, it just didn’t. Instead it wasted billions and accomplished nothing. A better idea is to allow for nightly rentals in a carefully regulated and limited way and give people a opportunity to comply with the law, pay taxes, and enjoy Mammoth. If we create $20,000 hurdles to thoughtful programs, all that does is force nightly rentals underground, unregulated and un-taxpaying.
However, as Mary makes clear, she just doesn’t trust the Council to do the right thing. Is that fair? Well, Mary could have said she has fifty million reasons not to, but she’s far too polite. Yes, it’s true, past Councils have not polished our local government image, but we have a new Council and they are working hard to earn your trust. Measure Z will take away their ability to make carefully adjusted changes to deal with the high demand for home rentals while protecting neighborhoods against unwanted change, without a public vote and a $20,000 cost to do that. Hey folks, nightly rentals are here, the internet is not going away, and of course this affects our economic interests. We are a tourist town. We need to find smart ways to cope with all this, that’s what the Council is for. Let’s at least give the Council a chance to do what the Council was elected to do, create an intelligent, thoughtful program to deal with something that concerns us all, before we start swinging the meat-ax. Will Mammoth succeed against all the competition out there, and will it remain a good place to live? That will depend on how many smart decisions we make and how many bad ones we avoid. Rejecting Measure Z will give the Council the opportunity to make those smart decisions. Vote no in October
Paul Rudder
Mammoth Lakes
