LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
NOTE: Letters to the Editor are not necessarily the opinion of the Editor and/or staff.

Letter to the Editor: RE: GENERAL PLAN

WE ARE NOT DUMB! -
We know the only reason you want to annex Sierra Brooks is for the tax base structure. I do believe you are under the influence of the developer whose only interest is to take the money and run.
The City of Loyalton cannot afford to clean up the city with abandoned buildings all over town they allow the city to look like a ghost town. They allowed a downtown beautification with curbs and gutters with no storm drains to accommodate the run-off that creates ice dams all along Main Street, creating a danger to the general public
The residents of Sierra Brooks want NO PART of your city and all the problems you have. We have enough of our own. Perhaps you had better look at Resolution 71-21 of the Board of Supervisors of Sierra County, adopted June 1, 1956 by Resolution 672 pursuant to County Service Area.
Do you really think our tax dollars will give you more money to spend on your city s infrastructure when our money comes along with the responsibilities of these services in this resolution. I think you are being undulated with delusions of grandeur by this developer. I hope you realize that with every new home or development comes a price tag. Along with the annexation of Sierra Brooks comes the Association. We have CC&Rs. That requires 2/3 of the voting
your plans. When I bought my property Sierra Brooks was zoned General Forest Not so anymore The

County has rezoned us to RR1. We had a working hospital emergency room fully staffed, a lab and medical and ambulance Now we have what amounts to no more than a nursing home Solid waste management fee was $60 a year a fee that gone up considerably and the dumps were FREE with no extra charges on anything. The schools and pool were all functioning well, so was the mill, the property owners association was a fun thing to belong to and the directors really cared about the residents. Our water was free and the residents volunteered to keep it running. We had no problems that we could not fix because we were a neighborhood and worked together. Leaving our problems in the hands of the county has cost us dearly. We have paid the price of a non-functional association The neighborhood is now divided. New people in the area have no idea of our history and accept the words of people self-serving individuals who want nothing but Power and Control. Give us a break Do you really want us to submit to your plans? Do you really think you can afford us and all the legal problems facing the association as we stand now'? Better to clean up your own back yard before you take on someone else's. We have enough problems If you want our money you had better be prepared to take on the responsibilities that go along with it.
Sincerely,
                  Camille Silicani
                 Sierra Brooks

Well Sports Fans it looks as if Loyalton's new found savior (John Gullixson) is doing what he does best. He is now suing, hard working and honest ranchers, with more of his damned frivolous Mickey Mouse lawsuits. To put it into everyday terms Attorney, John

PG 5
Gullixson is throwing a Legal Beagle Temper Tantrum His infamous fictional Sierra Valley Development Group is a smoke screen for his real employer and financial support, The Shappell power to annex. You should be aware of what goes into the mix when you put Sierra Brooks in lawsuits an services
Industries Inc their corporate offices are at 8383 has Wilshire Blvd Suite 700 Beverly Hills, CA 90211
None of us ' Hicks" are fooled by his elaborate pre- sensations of local prosperity. Gullixson didn't have the common courtesy to attend the Town Hall meeting on Saturday April 21 So was
John as elitists as you view yourself you're just out of your league around here. We are an honest to a the point and hardworking people in the Sierra Valley. We do not appreciate your sue happy, below the belt tactics. Everything you do seems to be based on incessant greed us Please follow the next available ambulance out of Sierra Valley
                             Ed Holley
                     Sierra Brooks

Dear Jan
Just wanted to thank you and June Reeves for the wonderful issue of the Booster with all of the memories of Marcel and Frances Bony and their home Growing up in Sierra Valley that was one of the most important places Mom used to take us Mom (Hazel- Adams Maddalena) had worked for Frances as a youngster and was so pleased to be a friend of the Bonys. We grew up knowing that these were special
people and that this was an elegant home in the Valley.
In the winter when Marcel and Frances went to
Bangor, Dad and Mom along with my brothers and I all went to Loma Rica and - Continued page 6

 PG 6

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
NOTE: Letters to the Editor are not necessarily the opinion of the Editor and/or staff.
Dear Editor:
Spring has sprung, and baby animals are exploring their big new world. Here's what to do if you spot a baby animal:
o Wait and watch. Most baby birds, rabbits, squirrels, deer, and other animals don't need humans' help-their parents are usually nearby.
o Baby birds with a half-inch or more of tail feathers are good to go. Unless they're in obvious danger, don't put them back in the nest-they will only hop out again, If necessary, place the bird on the lowest limb of a small tree or shrub.
o If the baby is featherless, gently put him back in his nest (your scent won't keep his parents away). Can't reach the nest? Make one from a berry basket, kitchen strainer, or small plastic container with holes punched in the bottom. Line it with shredded tissue, and hang it in a sheltered spot near the original nest.
Never try to tame baby animals or keep them as "pets." It's against the law in most places and unfair to the animal, who needs to be, with and learn from others of his own kind.
o If you see any baby animal whose mother has been killed call a licensed wildlife rehabilitator. Your local humane society can probably provide their phone numbers.
For more tips on living with wildlife, visit www.Helping Wildlife.com.
Sincerely,
Stephanie L. Boyles,Wildlife Biologist
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

CONFLICT OF INTEREST???
Attorney John Gullixson seems to like the term "Conflict of Interest." He has used it against Tim Beals, Sierra County Director of Planning and Transportation and Bill Powers, Supervisor Plumas County Board of Supervisors (Plumas County News, Tuesday, April 3, 2007).
According to the Political Reform Act of 1974, California's. Conflict of Interest Law for public officials:

 "The Political Reform Act requires public officials at all levels of government to publicly disclose their private economic interests and to disqualify themselves from participating in decisions in which they have a financial interest."
According to the Fair Political Practices Commission's Economic Statement of Economic Interests Employees in positions that fall into any of the following categories are required to file Statements of Economic Interests (Form 700)
"
.4. Attorneys

8. Employees, who make government decisions as described below:
"Government decisions are those that may foresee-able have a material effect on any financial interest, such as final decisions on:
Land use, zoning, redevelopment plans permits and variances..."
Let's see. Attorney John Gullixson is all of the following:

1. Attorney
2, State Employee (Plumas County LAFCO)
3. Executive Officer Plumas County LAFCO
4. Developer
5. Intimately involved in proving damages against the State of California for $1.4 million over the Lake Davis poisoning
Who has a conflict of interest, Attorney Gullixson? As Attorney Gullixson so poetically stated, "It's all about the money."
                                          Juanita Holley
                                  Sierra Brooks

Dear Editor, It has come to my attention that the animal case
against Craig McHenry may be set for retrial. As you may remember he was convicted of animal cruelty relating to the deaths of several of his calves after a. blizzard in 2001. Because the district attorney and judge wouldn't allow Craig's chief witness to testify, he filed for an appeal and won. Now the case is before the court here again. - Continued page 7

 PG 7

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Continued..
Tens of thousands of dollars have been spent already to prosecute this man. This includes the expense of the trial and more than $25,000 that was paid to Truckee Animal Control for an investigation - autopsies that instead proved the animals had been well fed. Then the expert Sierra County hired was a veterinarian from Truckee - someone with no experience with beef cattle. This man called alfalfa a "green weed" and testified that cattle can't die of hypothermia. Clearly, we've all learned from this winter's storms in the Midwest and Rockies that cattle DO die of exposure - as thousands of cattle died in those storms.
This case could come to a quick conclusion if our district attorney would contact the chief witness for the defense, Dr. John Maas. Unlike the Truckee vet, Dr. Maas IS a cattle expert - he teaches at the UC Davis Veterinary School and wrote the veterinarian textbook chapters that the other vet misquoted. In a letter to the probation department Dr. Maas said the animals clearly did not die of starvation but of hypothermia from the winter storm. In the written opinion from the appeals court, the court questioned why the district attorney never contacted Dr. Maas and why he would object to the man's testimony. Perhaps the district attorney could end this case with a simple phone call. . and save Sierra County a lot of expense and stress. Bill us for the phone call - not another trial.
Sincerely,
                                          Pat Whitley
                                   Loyalton

Sarah Jackson, a recent member of the City General Plan Advisory Committee, who has attended just one meeting, has submitted a letter to the City Council to have Tom Dotta, Jackie Mitchell, and John Gullixson removed from the Committee. Each of these people have served on the Committee for seven months. Each of these people have signed an application to Reorganize Sierra County LAFCo, an independent commission that is not within the governance of the City of Loyalton.
Sarah Jackson, to repeat, has been on this Committee for only one meeting and she already has a problem with the process. She has made only two statements and they have both been directed at these three people. We only have two or maybe three meetings left and I wonder if she can try and work with people of differing points of view. I believe the law requires that we have differing points of view so that as many Loyalton residents as possible may be represented. I know that there are people who strongly support our point of view and deserve to be represented.
Sarah Jackson states in her letter that signing the application was our legal right but that it clouds the issue before us. 'The cloud" would only exist if we had but one point of view. The rest of the committee seems perfectly clear on our assignments. Our assignment
was to come up with a large area expansion plan and an analysis justifying a significant area expansion plan. We have worked on our proposal since last September. There have been many changes since September, the latest of which is Sarah Jackson. In fact, we three have been the most faithful attendees of Committee meetings.

 Sierra Booster April 20,2007
Sarah Jackson asserts that the three committee members have a conflict with their personal property. Sarah Jackson has the very same conflict. We each own a home in or around the Loyalton area. I feel honored to have worked with the people on the committee. I have learned much about some of my neighbors that I did not know and a lot about Generals Plans. I hope to finish the task and turn it over to the City Council to have them make a decision that results in a City that prospers with the tools needed to make the City of Loyalton a place we can all feel happy to call home.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely,
                                     Jackie Mitchell
                                        Loyalton

Rumor has it that Attorney John Gullixson was following an ambulance down Highway 49 and stumbled into Loyalton. After acquiring several local lap dogs, he thinks that this is going to be his new empire. Please read the following about the annex-ation of Sierra Brooks:
All this will do is raise our utility bills, double what they are now, and threaten the livelihood of Sierra Valley ranchers, while he moves on down 49 counting his newly acquired fortune.
A new $2.1 million water system is now in the preliminary stage for Sierra Brooks. If Sierra Brooks were to be annexed into the City, there would be an excellent chance that part of the Gullixson Development would tap into it. The system is to be paid for by the residents of Sierra Brooks at an estimated cost of $278.85 per parcel per year for 40 years over and above the current rate.
The locals would have been more receptive to this change in the "sphere of influence" (also known as future annexation), if it would have been presented in a proper manner. Instead it was convened behind closed doors in the darkness of night. When asked about it at a public meeting on March 20, Attorney Gullixson and Brooks Mitchell publicly denied it. Secrets can't be kept in a close-knit community like we have.
Yes, Loyalton needs well-planned growth - not this insanity. We have everything to lose as residents and our way of life will be ruined while he moves on to another territory to devastate.
If Gullixson and Associates were serious about wanting to help the City of Loyalton, they would consider rebuilding the swimming pool for the kids with-in the area. While he is at it, after the swimming pool, purchase and remodel the hotel opening the opportunity for new individual businesses within the building, which would also help the tax base of the City. It is imperative that anyone living in the City of Loyalton or within 10 miles of the City attend the meeting on April 21st at the Loyalton Social Hall from one to five.
                                                 Ed Holley
                                    Sierra Brooks

THE SIERRA-PLUMAS SCHOOL
BOARD MEETING was broadcast live via video cam to Loyalton from Downieville Tuesday, April 10th. A small group gathered in Loyalton at the elementary school to join the Downieville meeting. Laurie Marsh donated her time in operating the program in Loyalton.
The meeting's proceedings were watched on a large screen with a somewhat dark image and the audio was at times hard to hear. Board member Sharon Dryden was clear and District Superintendent Greg Haulk was easy to decipher yet Board members Billy Epps, Mans Womack and Gene Moses will need to speak up.
SIERRA-PLUMAS JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT held its April 10th meeting by video conference from Downieville, recorded in Loyalton. Shown above in Downieville, District Superintendent Greg Haulk is shown with Trustees Todd York, Sharon Dryden and Mans Womak and Business Manage Rose Asquith. Seated are Trustees Billy Epps an Gene Moses. Lower left is a live shot of the audience in Loyalton.
Megan Meschery was in the Loyalton audience and was congratulated for her Fulbright Foreign Scholarship program to Spain in August for rural education and development. She said she is certified to teach English as a second language and hopes to come back. As for who will carry her local classes, Megan will leave lesson plans and suggested using her replacement as a "stepping stone" and mentioned Melissa Mann. And now with the video conferencing, she can talk from Spain. With Meschery gone, Trustee Sharon Dryden noted students could lose without the required two-years' in foreign language. District Superintendent Greg Haulk talked of Meschery's ownership in the program" and that he expects the program to run "extremely efficiently while she is gone." Heather Clark of Sierra Brooks addressed the Board in Downieville over what she called the "spirit is lost in schools." She was talking of the change in the rally which was to be held in Loyalton and she expressed her feelings that those in Sierra County are "having a harder time getting our voices heard." Haulk explained the rally had been presented as a school march for Rural Schools funding which is very political, tied to the war bill. He suggested a rally appropriate to curriculum. Barbara Butterfield, in the Loyalton audience, suggested a spirit rally or educational rally on how proud we are and how hard students have worked. She wanted the event during school time and down Main Street to involve the community and to invite Downieville. She call it a "really great thing, to work together to show our support." She suggested the Board appeal the superintendent's decision. Haulk was all in favor but talked of two different issues. He was in favor of the rally but stated, "the minute you bring Rural Schools Act you make it a political rally." He had no problem with having it at the school.
Butterfield felt the important part was off campus so the community could be involved. Meschery added there's nothing more educational than for the kids to

SIERRA-PLUMAS JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT held its April 10th meeting by video conference from Downieville, recorded in Loyalton. Shown above in Downieville, District Superintendent Greg Haulk is shown with Trustees Todd York, Sharon Dryden and Mans Womak and Business Manage Rose Asquith. Seated are Trustees Billy Epps an Gene Moses. Lower left is a live shot of the audience in Loyalton.

be out in the community, calling it "positive and healthy."
Board trustee Billy Epps imagined those
"teenagers turned downtown" all at one time. Dryden said the event was organized to support passage of the bill which needs to be passed for the schools and called it a way to get media attention She noted now the original intent has moved to spirit rally and said schools are always open t encourage parents' support.
Trustee Maris Womack felt it was a wonderful idea what "we're always looking for" but can't support I "maybe over-cautious."
Trustee Todd York agreed if the spirit rally was at school; if political, he was "gun shy."
In closing, it was agreed the parents group would meet concerning a school time spirit rally and maybe a march downtown on parents' time.

 
SANTA CLARA PROPERTY east of
Loyalton is NOT sold as was stated at the General Plan Advisory Committee Public Hearing April 21st According to Ronald E Garratt Assistant City Manager the property is owned by the City Electric Utility, Silicon Valley Power, and, "it was purchased over 25 years ago in the anticipation that geothermal power could be tapped on the site That form of green power project has not materialized on the property, The Council over the past few years have considered various options for the 10,000 acre property including sale of the property but nothing has happened to date. We have not seriously explored a sales offer since 2000."
Tuesday I received the following letter
Dear Jan,
In response to your inquiry about the sale
of the City of Santa Clara's property at
Loyalton we have no knowledge of this have no idea where this was stated or by whom. We at the City would be very Thank you for keeping us abreast of the situation in your area we greatly appreciate any information you may uncover.
John Schwartz, P.E.
Sr. Electrical Utility Engineer
Silicon Valley Power

WHERE WERE YOU LOYALTON?
At the public hearing of the General Plan Advisory Committee held April 21st, Loyalton residents were outnumbered by Sierraville arid Sierra Brooks. Not even Loyalton's mayor attended and just two Main Street businesses were represented. Yet why am I surprised when the Committee is headed by a man from Truckee, having its minutes published on a website by Sattley and the meeting recorded by Sierraville? -

NOT SO LONG AGO, Sierra Valley District Hospital was in trouble and the idea of a hospital bond was sold by the hospital administration which did not own any property in the hospital district and NOT SO LONG AGO, Sierra Valley District Hospital was in trouble and the idea of a hospital bond was sold by the hospital administration which did not own any property in the hospital district and did not even reside within Sierra County. The bond passed for which we still paying and will pay until the year 2023. The hospital is now sold, owned by another district and Loyalton is left with no vote.

 WITH MORE ACTIVITY, Loyalton could be a Main Street Community rather than a Bedroom Community.
If I've learned one thing from the Committee meetings, it's that Dave Goicoechea and Sierra Brooks do not want to be a part of Loyalton. How sad since Sierra Brooks' 305 residences could make a tremendous contribution on downtown. They could help in the effort to expand the days at the bank, the library and the bakery. They could increase the ADA at our schools and expand services in our health care. They could help in the volunteering efforts of our service and community organizations.
It might all help in revitalizing our downtown - something that all three committees on the general plan say they support.
******

NATALIE SABLAN, Field Representative for Assemblyman Rick Keene, was in Loyalton April 18th to attend the Republican Women's Luncheon at Golden West Saloon. Following the luncheon meeting at which Sheriff John Evans was the featured speaker, Natalie visited with Sierra County Supervisor Brooks Mitchell and the Sierra Booster office and Happy Heart Quilts and Collectibles shop: She then went on to Calpine to attend the Sierra County Chamber of Commerce dinner meeting.
Her interest and participation is appreciated!

LETTERS TO THE Editor:
NOTE: Letters to the Editor are not necessarily the opinion of the Editor and/or staff.

Dear editor, I'm shocked, disturbed and befuddled on the lack of
spine and backbone the Sierra county and the city of Loyalton citizens have. There is an opportunity for Loyalton to actually become an economically viable city, but no, instead they would rather listen to the county head or should 1 say "flock leader" and listen to the propaganda that is being dished out. But some citizens I understand have special interest because the flock leader said so!!!! This comes from a lack of education on the citizen's part and by all means if those certain citizens want to~ continue to be a sheep that's fine, that's your right, but it's sad to think that a county or a town could be so spineless. Well, I'm a man and I will not join the flock.
Also, the environmental activist movement is on the rise in Sierra County and the number one thing this group does is stop advancement on a town trying to be economically viable. The key words the environmental activists use are words like "protect, secure and our children;" these are the very key words used to justify conservation easements. Conservation easement groups are the same groups that tried to destroy the country -back in the sixties, and a more familiar term would be "hippies". Ranchers that are a part of these environmental socialist groups need to wake up~! Remember Ranchers, these groups are your enemy not your friend, But those ranchers that have all ready sold out, too late, I'm sorry.
Finally, I have a rich history that dates back to the 1800's in Sierra Valley and I love this valley very much so. That is why I'm trying to educate the citizens in on what's really going on. I know my ancestors that came form the old country would be very disappointed at the way things are going on at this time in the City of Loyalton. Remember citizens, it's not too late to stand up and do the right thing, but if you don't stand up and get some guts or grow a spine your county and city will buckle. Also there is only .9% of land that can be developed, so there for the City of Loyalton will never be a Sacramento. Finally, citizens think for your self and don't join the flock of NO GROWTHERS. I'M PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN. Thanks.
Thomas Allen Dotta Sr.
Elk Grove CA

 STATEMENT made to the Sierra County
Board of Supervisors during Public Comment period at the 1st May meeting:
Mr. Chairman and members of the Board of Supervisors of Sierra County, ~ 3) Speaking of Please explain what exactly was misleading. debate which is what the 1 May Meeting have asked for over the past few months how Chairman and members of the Board of exactly are we to 'trust you to make the right decisions when you admitted in this very room Section 54950 of the Brown Act of California states Supervisors of Sierra County
in enacting this chapter the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions boards and councils and the other public agencies in the State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business.
It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people in delegating authority do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. In the interest of open dialogue I called Chairman Huebner yesterday to ask for some clarifications surrounding Letter to the Editor that he published on April 20, 2007. Unfortunately, Chairman Huebner did not have time to answer any of my questions. In the interest of public debate I will ask these questions today, in the hopes that when Chairman Huebner does have time to speak with me, he may answer them. In addition, it is necessary that these questions be asked in this venue in. order that the rest of you may understand our determination and our unwillingness to be bullied.

1) Chairman Huebner, you asserted in your letter that statements made by this "elected perfect spokesperson we're misleading. Please explain what exactly was misleading. The facts, please by the way, none of our statements claimed that I was "elected" or "perfect".

2) How many people and from what areas of supports that type of behavior. Sierra County have you received "support and sincere concern?" We have documented our support. . Without something more than vague, undocumented assertions, we do not see how you can serious debate this issue.

 3) Speaking of serious debate, which is all we have asked for over the past few months how exactly are we to "trust you to make the right decisions" when you admitted, in this very room at the last meeting where the salary raises were discussed that you had no recollection voting for 11 % raises for the dept heads last year? We look forward to hearing the answers to those questions in the interest of actually moving the debate forward. You see, Chairman Huebner the real issue here is that you have on several occasions starting in this room and now in a news vehicle and made an attempt to stifle public opinion and ridicule citizens who hold the sovereignty to the agencies which serve mentioned in the previous quote from the Brown Act same citizens who have an obligation to ensure You that the decisions made by this legislative body are correct. Your statement that 70+ people from every corner of our county who have signed our letter are "a few people from Loyalton, or Sierra County [who] are not only self-centered but also somewhat misleading "is name-calling
In fact, your entire letter did not advance the debate. We do not know where you stand on this issue and you have done your Constituents a disservice by advancing personal e questions today, in the hopes that when attacks rather than honestly addressing the issues. I speak regularly with my Supervisor and will continue to appear before this body in the interest of those who to see Sierra County prosper. We will not be intimidated and shame on anyone who supports that type of behavior.

Gail Ellingwood
Loyalton