HIT — Every year, when Nov. 8 rolls around, the first thing many of us do in the morning is look to the east — and recall that horrifying plume of smoke while pausing to honor the victims and appreciate the amazing people who are continuing to rebuild their lives.
The five-year anniversary of the Camp Fire was certainly no exception.
From the remembrance ceremony held on the ridge to the more-quiet and personal observances held all around the county, Wednesday was filled with somber reminders of all that was so awful about that day, but also with poignant examples of so much good that has followed — and all the progress still being made today.
Thanks to national media coverage, people from all over were able to see the best of the ridge in that ceremony, with local leaders joining state and federal representatives in saluting the area for its progress and resiliency. Assemblyman James Gallagher (R-Yuba City) may have put it best when he said “The best asset is the people of Paradise … there’s a lot of hope up here. There’s a lot of light.”
From the tens of millions of dollars raised by local charitable groups to the more than 2,000 homes that have already been rebuilt in Paradise, it was definitely a day to pause and remember — and also stand with pride.
MISS — It wasn’t the first time we’ve seen such a massive waste of everybody’s time in the Chico City Council chamber, and unfortunately it probably won’t be the last. But there was a lot to dislike about some things we witnessed Tuesday.
First, we can’t help but notice that small-town municipalities don’t exactly have a lot of pull with international affairs. Sure, “all politics are local” and there’s something to be said about joining a chorus of voices demanding change on any number of fronts.
But when the subject is something as complex, contentious and long-running as terrorism and violence in the Middle East, exactly who or what could the Chico City Council ever hope to influence?
It’s true the council did adopt an anti-nuke ordinance 40 years ago, and it’s true that cities such as Richmond did pass a resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. (A resolution that will accomplish nothing other than a predictable outcry of “Richmond has more than twice the national average of violent crimes per capita, and this is what the city council is worried about?”)
The large number of speakers who turned out to request a similar ordinance in Chico meant every speaker got just one minute to talk. That meant citizens who showed up to discuss things that are actually happening in Chico — housing, homelessness, rising rents in a mobile home park — had their time severely restricted. And that was without the two 20-minute recesses that were called because of disruptions from the audience.
Then there was the woman holding a sign crudely insulting another woman who was a member of the audience. Sometimes you have to look at things like this and wonder “Who in the world would actually think this is doing anybody an ounce of good?”
As one person in attendance was heard to say, “I feel like I’m in kindergarten again.”
You’d hope adults could do better.
HIT — A line from an old Bob Seger song, “working on mysteries without any clues,” is never a good way to run a government. That’s one of the reasons we’re glad that the City of Chico filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the city of Grants Pass, Ore. taking on Martin vs. Boise.
The landmark ruling has led to a variety of interpretations. For cities like Chico, which ended up not being able to enforce its anti-camping ordinances, it’s been a rough go. The end result has been a lot of tremendous progress and a Pallet shelter system that is the envy of many other towns in the state — but not without a lot of trial and error and expense along the way.
A common frustration with Martin-Boise is that much of what it says is open to interpretation. Is every city responsible to provide shelter for every homeless person who comes to their town? Should they all be unable to enforce local ordinances in the meantime? And what’s the difference between “camping” and “resting,” anyway?
While we agree with the basic notion that it shouldn’t be against the law to be homeless, we also disagree that this situation should land so squarely on the shoulders of local municipalities — especially when not all local municipalities are playing by the same set of rules.
The Supreme Court needs to step into this and provide some long-overdue direction and consistency.
Hits and misses are compiled by the editorial board.
