Letters to the editor: Supervisor's race; water shortage; Measures A & B; Clerk race

Follow supervisor race’s money

I spent three days spreadsheeting the campaign donation forms for Jeff Gorell and Claudia Bill-de la Peña filed at the end of April. I then assigned the donors into categories based on their business or personal affiliation. This is what I found.

Forty-four percent of Gorell’s money came from three groups, real estate, construction and farming. Many farm interests are against SOAR because it prohibits rezoning of farmland without voter approval. Claudia on the other hand received 35% of her money from retired individuals. Another 11% came from teachers, doctors and nurses. This is truly grassroots support from the community.

So, who is the winner go to be beholden to, special interests or the people of Ventura County? Property owner Shawn Moradian clearly supports Gorell as you can see on all the signs on his property. Surprisingly his name didn’t appear on the 460 filing. However, on May 2 he made an in-kind donation to the campaign. I wonder about the timing of this.

Was it a ploy to keep off the radar a little longer? I did come across five individuals who live in Los Angeles and Beverly Hills that seem to have no reason to donate to a Ventura County election, yet each gave the maximum allowed by law and this represented almost 3% of the money raised. However, deeper internet searches revealed all of them are associated with Moradian. At least two even appear to be relatives. Nothing illegal about this but you do have to question their motivation.

Gorell claims he doesn’t want urban sprawl but look at his money source. Claudia has a proven record supporting slow growth.

So follow the money. This will tell you who our new supervisor is really going to represent.

Karen Wilburn, Newbury Park

Projects to help water shortage

We need to get started on two projects to help solve the water shortage in California.

1) Build some large, safe nuclear power plants. We have been getting 18% of our electrical energy for over 60 years from nuclear power plants. The current ones use old designs but are still safer than solar and other sources of power. New designs, like the ones Bill Gates has, are even much better.

2) Next to the nuclear power plants build large desalination plants. It’s a safe source of fresh water. Studies show the plants do not cause an environmental problem anywhere in the world.

Paul Lux, Thousand Oaks

Oil wells need to be updated

As county voters contemplate how they will vote on Measures A & B, I’d like to share a unique perspective based on my 35 years of direct professional experience with oil company engagement with communities.

As past Director of the Santa Monica’s Environmental Protection Division, I participated in countless technical and legal meetings with oil companies when the city’s entire local water supply became contaminated with methyl tertiary butyl ether, a chemical found only in the oil companies’ gasoline. In spite of public overtures about taking care of the unimaginable damage done to the community, the oil companies’ first and enduring investment was not in finding replacement water for the community or taking steps to mitigate the problem, it was in buying attorneys to protect their self-interest and seemingly to avoid accountability. These unfortunate themes run deep in the “No on A & B” efforts to sway your vote.

When the opposition’s campaign claims falsely that A & B will increase our dependence on foreign oil, the inference is that by ensuring that their wells meet modern safety standards it would result in reduced domestic oil production, I can’t help but reflect on the over $100 billion profits posted by the top 28 oil companies in the first quarter of this year. That is over $1 billion profit per day. About 90% of the oil wells in Ventura County are considered antiquated and built to the safety standards from decades ago. A yes vote on A & B would ensure that some of these record profits be invested in making our community safer from wells built to 1920s’ safety standards.

Think of is this way, would you rather put your family on an airplane designed and built with 2020s technological and safety advances or on an airplane built in 1920?

Brian Johnson, Ventura

Best choice for Clerk-Recorder

Re: your May 22 story, “Four county offices up for election”:

The Star’s questionnaire to the candidates for Ventura County’s Clerk-Recorder omitted a crucial question: Do you agree the 2020 election “was the most secure in American history,” as stated by the person President Trump appointed to head the agency that was directed to secure the nation’s election systems?

Or the question could have been stated: “Do you agree with President Trump’s Attorney General who told Trump that his election fraud claims were nonsense?” (The Attorney General actually used a cruder word than “nonsense.”)

Rejection of the democracy-threatening lies that the 2020 election was not free and fair should be a minimum qualification for any aspiring election official in this country.

Despite the questionnaire’s omission, only current Assistant Clerk-Recorder Michelle Ascencion gave an answer that assured me she has that qualification: “Ventura County’s elections have been safe, secure and accurate for many, many years.” The other candidates’ responses left substantial doubts. I’ll be voting for Ascencion.

David S. Ettinger, Oak Park

A & B will damage the economy

As a small minority business owner, California and Ventura County are already among the most difficult places to make ends meet. With supply chain challenges that proliferated throughout the pandemic and have yet to fully recover, I cannot in good faith vote for measures that will further hinder my business and businesses like mine. Energy and resources are already scarce.

Measures A and B will further exacerbate the existing economic issues in our community, and that is why I will be voting no.

Denny Zermeno, Ventura

Bill reduces single-use plastic

The window to safely limit the effects of climate change is quickly closing, according to the recently released IPCC report. As a young person and an environmental science major at California Lutheran University, I know my future is at stake if we don’t do something about it now.

When thinking about causes and solutions to climate change, most people don’t think about plastic pollution, when really, plastic is made from fossil fuels and contributes to climate change at every stage of its life. If plastic were a country, it would be the fifth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

To help combat the climate crisis, we need to pass policies that reduce the production and use of unnecessary single-use plastic — especially where alternatives are available. Right now, California state lawmakers are considering a bill (AB 2026) that would phase-out single-use plastic packaging added to online orders when shipped.

E-commerce plastic packaging associated with products shipped into or consumed in California contributes to the nearly 3.4 billion pounds of plastic bags, wraps, and films generated every year. Most of this plastic isn’t recyclable and instead piles up in our landfills or the environment. AB 2026 is the first legislation of its kind in the United States to address all of the unwanted plastic packaging being sent to our homes and businesses from online shopping.

Californians know about this problem and want real change: A new poll by Oceana found that 72% of California voters support policies that reduce the use of plastic packaging from online shopping. I thank Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin for her work to fight plastic pollution and urge her to vote yes on AB 2026 this session — because our future depends on it.

Rayne Selhorst, Thousand Oaks

This article originally appeared on Ventura County Star: Letters: Supervisor's race; water shortage; Measures A & B; Clerk race