An important voice silenced

Jeff San Marchi, editor and publisher of the Ojai and Ventura Voice, collapsed around 8 p.m. Dec. 23 on the Ventura Pier and died. He is survived by two daughters.

It is not known to me what was the cause of his death or whether he died there or on the way to or at the hospital.

Jeff began the Ojai Valley Voice, later expanded to include Ventura, in 1988, nearly 20 years ago. He covered the stories that other papers missed or neglected and fearlessly shone light on skullduggery of any sort perpetrated by local elected officials.

The Voice was also a shared voice for the community. As just one example, Jeff's willingness to publish more than 50 articles by this writer, over a 10-year period during the 1990s, educating the public about the proposed Farmont Golfclub next to Rancho Matilija, created the public groundswell of opposition that gradually and steadfastly led to the exclusive development's failure. In the end, state bond money and local contributions led to the creation of the Ojai Valley Land Conservancy's 1,500-acre Ventura River Preserve on most of the Farmont property.

The community has lost an important voice. Nobody is likely to follow in Jeff's footsteps. The Voice was a one-man operation. Putting a 32-page (or thereabouts) newspaper together every two weeks (for nearly 20 years) required an immense amount of hard work — and no real vacation time, ever. Jeff often distributed the Voice himself, as well.

He hadn't looked well over much of the past year or so, but apparently he had intense resistance to visiting a doctor, and probably didn't do so.

Jeff, Ojai and Ventura will miss you greatly.

— Alasdair Coyne, Ojai

Greenhouse-gases fight saves

Re: Sean Paroski's Dec. 20 commentary, "Fighting greenhouse gases will be too costly":

We, at the Community Environmental Council, would like to point out the economic benefits of AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, passed by the governor last year. The author of the article bases his argument entirely on intuition, not on analysis.

Detailed economic analyses show that reducing dependence on fossil fuels and decreasing our state's greenhouse-gas emissions will actually save money. In 2006, UC Berkeley found that reducing emissions under AB32 will add $60 billion and 17,000 new jobs to our economy, on a net basis.

Decreasing emissions to 1990 levels will not require people to abandon their cars. Today's cars are highly inefficient and improving their efficiency will reduce emissions and save money. The same is true for electricity and natural gas used in our homes. Using technologies available today — hybrid cars and compact fluorescent light bulbs — we can dramatically increase efficiency. We will save money because less electricity and less fuel will be needed to do the same activities.

Additionally, as fossil-fuel costs continue to rise, we will save money by switching to local and renewable sources of energy like wind, geothermal, biomass and solar. Just like traditional power plants, renewable energy generation has upfront costs for construction, but once a renewable energy project is in place the "fuel" (sun, wind, etc.) is free. Many renewables, like wind, geothermal and biomass, are already cheaper than fossil-fuel electricity today. This cost-saving will only get better over time.

Reducing greenhouse-gas emissions will result in net economic benefits — not costs — and people won't have to give up their cars. But if people purchase one that gets better gas mileage and they drive a little less, their children, and their wallets, will thank them.

— Megan Birney, Community Environmental Council, Ventura

Thompson has the right stuff

Fred Thompson is the kind of man we need in the White House. He has America's interest at heart, unlike the other politicians.

I agree with the views he has addressed. I'm sure I am not the only one who is looking for solutions in the economy, illegal immigration, employment and the support of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

I am an immigrant and I will support Fred.

— John Minasian, Camarillo

Kids make noise, too

Re: your Dec. 14 article, "Camarillo pet noise law poised for change":

It seems to me that our existing pet noise ordinance has served our community well over the years. Given that, I seriously question if we really have a citywide systemic problem, or if it is just a handful of neighborhood malcontents wanting to change the system for the advantage of a very few.

In my opinion, if our City Council decides to move forward and change this ordinance, I would hope its actions include other people's screaming children as well.

— Dennis L. Solomon, Camarillo

Council playing God

Re: your Nov. 27 article, "Oxnard plans smoking ban in public senior housing":

What is wrong with the Oxnard City Council members that they can tell persons in senior housing that they can't smoke in places they live? Are they playing God? I don't know of any senior with a secondhand smoking problem. But it seems our City Council members do!

I would like to know how much money the state makes off cigarette taxes and how much money Oxnard gets.

But for council members to play God is just too much. Shame on them.

— Cleo Buschine, Oxnard

Wal-Mart's parking issue

Re: Opal Hester's Nov. 28 letter, "Eager for a Wal-Mart":

I realize that Hester wants a store at the old Kmart site, but there is not enough parking-lot space for a Wal-Mart at the Kmart location and still have parking spaces available for Trader Joe's, IHOP, the China Palace, Boston Market, Masters' Donut Shop, Batteries Plus, etc.

Also, Victoria Avenue itself cannot handle the additional vehicle traffic that would ensue.

If Wal-Mart is eager to do business in this community, then let the company find an area large enough to accommodate all aspects of the store, including its large parking-lot requirements. The Kmart site is not big enough for a Wal-Mart store, period — especially a Wal-Mart superstore.

— Edie Stettnisch, Ventura

Health plan doesn't cut costs

Re: Timm Herdt's Dec. 19 essay, "Who defends status quo?":

A complaint about an office surgery costing $300 must mean that Herdt hasn't taken his car in for repair or service lately. I'm happy to get away with $300 for anything performed by a mechanic on my 1997 SUV.

It would be telling for one of The Star's reporters to ask any lawmaker in Sacramento if he can describe what our current healthcare system consists of. There are so many programs that have been put into service for those who are uninsured that nobody remembers what they are, let alone how to access them. Let's see, COBRA, Cal-COBRA, Major Risk Medical Insurance Program, Healthy Kids, California Kids, Kaiser Cares for Kids, Healthy Families, Medi-Cal, Access for Infants and Mothers and Medically Indigent Adult Program. Not to mention, God forbid, private health insurance.

This scheme being hammered out by the governor, Democrats and the service unions (they are getting no help from Republican lawmakers) does nothing to reduce the cost of a surgery. Only a patient's control of his care and insurance can do that. And I doubt whether many individuals would be upset about paying $300 to find that a skin blemish, once removed, was clinically proved to be benign.

— Fred Ziegler, Ventura

Keeping healthcare privileged

Re: your Dec. 23 commentaries by Audra Strickland, "Plan is bad medicine," and Stan Rosenstein, "Fix our broken system":

These commentaries clearly indicate there are two sides to addressing healthcare needs: Those who are doing everything they can to ensure all citizens have a right to healthcare and those who are doing everything they can to keep it for themselves.

My family is fortunate to have its healthcare insurance needs covered where my wife works. Recently, my son had his wisdom teeth removed. Signing the deposit check, I was struck by two thoughts — I am so very grateful for being able to provide this treatment for him but how devastating it must be for parents who are not so fortunate and must forgo needed care for their children.

Strickland is an advocate for her constituents. She would keep healthcare reserved for the privileged. It is time compassionate voters in her district to advocate she lose her state-paid health insurance and experience a little healthcare insecurity herself.

— Steve Kane, Thousand Oaks

Alternative fuels expensive

Re: Sean Paroski's Dec. 20 commentary, "Fighting greenhouse gases will be too costly":

"After all, a crippled California economy would certainly pollute less," Paroski wrote.

It was refreshing to read a commentary pointing out the possible ramifications of environmentalists' political successes. Fighting greenhouse gases will be too costly because, in general, environmentalists don't care what cleaning the environment costs — the ends justify the means.

How many readers know the ramifications of environmentalists' success in convincing politicians and bureaucrats to force utilities to increase the amount of electricity produced from their favorite sources? My electricity provider has documented the average costs of electricity from various sources for a 12-month period. The following costs per kilowatt-hour for sources that environmentalists hate — nuclear (47 cents), coal ($1.50) and natural gas ($4.82). The costs for sources they love are wind ($6.91), geothermal ($7.23), biomass ($9.47) and solar ($16.34). As the percentage of electricity from this latter group continues to increase, so will the cost of electricity. Solar electricity costs nearly 35 times nuclear electricity, nearly 11 times coal electricity and more than three times gas electricity.

In order to compensate lower-income people for the increased cost, government implements subsidy programs that use taxation and higher electricity rates to redistribute income from higher-income people.

— Bill Stanley Westlake Village