Opinions/Letters to Editor

Re: Battle for Hawaiian Gardens Heats Up

Dear Editor:

Your front page article, dated July 31, 2009, Battle For Hawaiian Gardens Heats Up, [seemed to refer] that Pastor Barry Bruce and the community organization (Operation RAGE: Rally Against Gentrification Efforts) [was] the “apparent spokesperson for” and supports the Hawaiian Gardens Barrio Gang. It {most certainly] does not!
What it does support is residents of Hawaiian Gardens who have had their civil rights violated by law enforcement using the covering of a Gang Injunction. This “injunction” has allowed deputies of questionable character to racially profile, victimize and label anyone they want to as a gangster without the “proof” that they say is required. The group (Operation RAGE) is well documented and well supported by many citizens who have absolutely no criminal records. This is why Sheriff Lee Baca came to the city council meeting and why he is now meeting with organizers of the group to resolve outstanding complaints that were never followed up on by his department.
Pastor Bruce was also misquoted ... in the article (please see Editor's retraction), [including] attributing him to a statement made against the Hawaiian Gardens Casino and Bingo club. Pastor Bruce and Operation RAGE are not hostile to any business that operates uprightly and meets the requirements of its city and the laws within it.

Publisher's Rant
The Healthcare
"Debate"

"If we're able to stop Obama on [health care reform], it will be his Waterloo. It will break him".
Sen. Jim DeMint
(R) South Carolina

We have a sickness industry. Healthcare. Many health care companies have interlocking boards of directors and lobbyists really doing what they please in Washington. The CEO of SIGNA made $12.3 million last year, retiring with a $73 million golden parachute. Meanwhile 1,400 people per day are filing for bankruptcy because of their medical bills. Sick
Now they are sending Americans out to town hall meetings to "disrupt" said meetings to the point of disorderly conduct.
Health care companies are actually paying ordinary Americans, who they would cut off from healthcare if given the chance, people who are not even from the district where the meeting is at, to shout down the congress-person so no debate takes place.
I have nothing against a good old-fashioned debate but to interrupt meetings to stop the debate is not right.
They are absolutely against democracy in this country, and their ultimate goal is to scare people into thinking this is a terrible health care bill.
It is scary because we are not debating it, right wing think tanks funded by the health corporations are lying and influencing people. When they have nothing to sell, they use lies and hate.

Here is some information on two different health care plans to debate:

I pay $1,005 per month for my family and we are never sick (knock on wood).

People on Medicare pay $350 per month, (usually) visit the doctor more, and have much more costly illnesses.

One industry is for profit, one is government run.

One has a CEO, the other does not.

One is for-profit, the other a non-profit single payer system.

Can you guess which?
The VA is a government run health plan. Why is it an adequate health plan for our veterans and not us?
If everyone is covered (single-payer), we will have no workman’s compensation, which is calculated per dollar of payroll. Bureau of Labor Statistics show 1.3 billion in non-farm payroll for 2008. That amounts to a savings of over $100 billion to American businesses. (There are many more companies that have higher rates for workman's compensation-roofers pay $17, office rate is $1)
The bill has been debated over 100 times, it has survived five government committees, it has been blue lined redlined, and hard-lined.
Both parties have debated it, and now that its time to take it to the American people for debate what happens, the health care companies are fighting back with these "disrupters".
Why?
They are for profit making billions at the expense of sick people.
Why are we the only industrialized nation in the world not to have universal health care?
PAC’S (funded by health care companies) that’s why....sick.


Medicare:
God Send
or Devil Sent?

For many years I lived in a Rectory. Let me explain what a Rectory is for those of you who are not Catholic Christians. It is a home for unwed Fathers. In that home we lived together, worked together and ate together.
Often, the most exciting time of the day was the dinner meal. Current controversial topics were frequently discussed and hotly debated. This was especially true in the 1960’s with divergent views being expressed on the Vietnam War, civil rights, the grape strike and the plight of farm workers.
As we celebrate the 44th birthday of Medicare, I recall the fierce debates we had at the dinner table in the early 1960’s on pending Medicare legislation. One of our prime ministries as priests was administering to the sick and the elderly. We were very conscious that so many of our seniors were without healthcare insurance, lived alone in so called rest homes and died in severe pain unattended by the medical profession.
On the other hand, we lived in a period that was obsessed with the evils of atheistic communisism. The proposed Medicare legislation was labeled by the John Birch Society as a Communist plot led by Satan to take over the world. Similar groups said that government involvement in health care was socialism and therefore the next step to an evil communistic society.
Fast forward to June 10, 2009, at age 78 I am hit with a kidney stone attack. I am in intense pain. I go to the hospital of my choice, I am treated by the doctors of my choice, I am given the best of medical care. Today, I am well and back on my feet thanks to Medicare.
While the present Medicare program is not perfect, the vast majority of Doctors, Hospitals and patients are very satisfied with the Medicare system. It is a one-payer government system where people have the choice of their doctors and hospitals. Medicare is no longer thought of as a satanic plot.
While some of the same old arguments are being used today to derail healthcare reform, it is my hope that the successful Medicare model be passed by the Congress to include the 47 million uninsured. A Public Option or other Universal Healthcare plan is, in my opinion, the moral right way to go.

Charlie Ara, Cerritos



Request to
Congresswoman
Linda Sanchez

Dear Congresswoman,

On your website you have a section where you have a section where those of us who live in your district can write you our questions. Problem is you also have a requirement that we give you our "healthcare" stories. As I am naturally leery of politicians with who I have disagreed on such topics bending and using what I have to say to benefit their own political careers, I am choosing to send this letter publicly as an open letter for your response in a similar public matter.
Here are my questions:
1. There is much concern and distrust of any healthcare package emanating from Congress that does not also subject all federal employees, including the President and members of Congress to the same healthcare system any major change would foist on the rest of America. In other words such an exemption would mean that Congress & the White House are shafting the rest of America, while they and other federal employees have gold plated health care coverage. So will you have as a litmus test that a provision putting everyone (The President, Congress & other federal employees included) under the same system?
2. I have friends who are doctors and when I ask them why health care insurance is so expensive, they respond by telling me how doctors and insurance companies are so concerned about lawsuits that they cover their posteriors with many test most of which they know are unnecessary, which end up driving health care costs through the roof. This problem is not addressed in the current legislation in the House. Will you require that this problem be addressed in a manner that does not further drive up costs before you vote in favor of a final bill? If so, what should such a provision look like?
3. There is concern that some are using healthcare reform to advance abortion and euthanasia politics via the family planning & the medical experts board provisions. Will you vote for a final bill with such provisions embedded into the language? Why or why not?
4. Congressman Barney Frank was the latest in a series of Democrat leaders saying flat out that a government option would lead to a single payer system. With many who still have jobs liking the coverage they currently have, what provisions will you make sure are in the final bill before you vote for it, so as to fulfill the President's promise that those who like their current coverage will see no change?
5. There is great concern that in the 3 House bills much of it will be paid for by restricting the level of coverage that our elderly and disabled communities receive. This concern is based on stories from British and Canadian citizens who were denied care in their home nations, and had to come to the U.S. where their lives have been extended in some cases by decades. What language will you make sure is part of the final bill that will address these concerns? How should that language be worded?
6. There are many 20 and 30 year olds like myself who are interested in having less expensive and more portable health insurance via Health Savings Accounts & Association Health Care Plans (that can pool risk across state lines, similar to what big business and AARP currently do through provisions in ERISA), yet you seem to oppose them in past sessions of Congress on partisan grounds. Why have you done so, and will you continue to do so as the health care bill gets condensed from multiple bills down to one final bill?
This will be submitted as an open letter to the local papers and bloggers in your district, I'm sure all of your constituents will be interested in your responses. Especially when your House leadership position within the Democrat party can have a huge impact on how the final bill will read
Sincerely,
Matt Kauble
Cerritos resident


Cerritos Pollution-Many Questions Remain
Unanswered

By Mayor Pro Tem Joseph Cho

I would like to commend Cerritos Mayor Bruce Barrows and City Staff for their professional handling of the urgent situation caused by the June 24, 2009 USA Today article which said that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) named Cerritos as having the worst air pollution in the nation. Thanks to their immediate attention and efforts, it has been shown that the EPA report was based on inaccurate, incomplete and outdated data, and that Cerritos is not a toxic hot spot. However, despite all of their hard work, there are still many questions left unanswered, even though it has been more than a month since the USA Today reported about the air pollution issue. We need answers to our questions, in order to figure out all the facts.
First of all, we have cancer risk data for only one census tract in Cerritos, the one that the EPA named as the worst cancer risk in the country. It is most important for us to obtain accurate facts and communicate them to the residents. I strongly believe that we should know what is the overall quality of our air from all pollutants - not just from one specific chemical or 1 particular plant, and how that compares to other cities nearby. Air travels, so we are all impacted by pollution emitted in surrounding cities as well.
At the June 25, 2009 Council meeting, I requested from the EPA all available data regarding cancer risks for the entire City of Cerritos and in surrounding cities plus Long Beach, downtown Los Angeles and Wilmington, but the EPA has not reported back to us despite their representative assuring us that they would provide us with answers within two weeks. I am specifically interested in the data from the EPA National-scale Air Toxic Assessment (NATA) report that is in question as well as the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Studies (MATES III) from April 2004 to March 2006.
I was glad to hear that the July 9, 2009 SCAQMD news release claims that the Heraeus facility located on the NE corner of Alondra and Carmenita currently emits less than two pounds of Hydrazine per year, and based on the facility's operation history; it is likely that the same amount has been emitted since 1991. However, the 2002 EPA NATA report assumed that in 1989 (when the plant was owned by PGP Industries, Inc.) the plant emitted 1,250 pounds of Hydrazine.
Even though the SCAQMD confirmed that Heraeus currently emits less than two pounds of Hydrazine per year, I feel that the facility puts Cerritos residents’ health and safety at risk because in the past several years the facility had several violations and was required to pay fines on five separate occasions. I am also concerned about Cerritos residents’ safety due to the numerous drums of chemicals at Heraeus. These drums could cause an emergency situation in the event of an earthquake or a terrorist attack. I am sure that there are many other plants using toxic materials not only in the City of Santa Fe Springs, but in other surrounding cities.
I am very proud of our city - strict rules, regulations, approvals, etc. But when surrounding cities do not maintain a level of standards similar to ours; we need to actively work with those cities and the State to prevent companies outside of Cerritos from polluting out air. We must stay informed about air pollution that puts our health at risk no matter what city the source of the pollution is located.
At the June 25, 2009 Council meeting, Steven John, the EPA Director of the Southern California Field Office, said that the modeling of the EPA study had not gone through quality control and that the conclusions were not validated. We have not been able to figure out how and why the invalidated EPA report which tarnished Cerritos’ reputation was released to the news media. We also need to find out when and how often the EPA has released NATA reports, and what have the NATA reports over the years estimated cancer risk in Cerritos.
Based on the SCAQMD's recent research, the vast majority, about 84%, of air pollution induced cancer risk is due to exposure to diesel particulate matter (PM), and the EPA NATA report did not consider diesel PM in its cancer risk estimates. This means that the EPA NATA report did not fully take into account air pollution overall. This begs the question, what was the real purpose of the NATA report?
The SCAQMD memorandum described the purpose of the NATA assessment as a screening tool to provide information on potential toxic emissions sources, and not as a report of actual risk at the census tract level. I therefore feel that the report should not identify areas where the cancer risk is highest, or rank areas on pollution related cancer risk. However, without detailed knowledge of environmental issues, a reporter from the USA Today did not notice the limitation of the NATA report and wrongfully assumed that two nearby freeway intersections were causing high levels of air pollution in Cerritos and pointed out one section of our City as posing the worst cancer risk in the country. Therefore, it is very important for us to clarify the character (purpose, usage) of the EPA NATA report.
In MATES III, which takes into account cancer risks due to diesel PM, the average cancer risk across Los Angeles County is estimated to be about 1,200 in 1 million. At the July 9, 2009 Council meeting, Dr. Anupom (Pompom) Ganguli with the SCAQMD stated that the cancer risk in Cerritos is 1,200 to 1,500 in 1 million, primarily due to diesel exhaust. This estimate is in line with the average risk in Los Angeles County, and is far below the levels of 2,400 to 3,200 in 1 million recorded near the ports, downtown Los Angeles and Riverside, but higher than the national average. Although air pollution in Cerritos is not the worst in the nation, Southern California as a whole remains one of most highly polluted areas of the country, and the cancer risks in Southern California remain unacceptably high.
I recognize that we do not want to cause any unnecessary alarm to the community and want to resolve this issue as soon as possible. However, I do not want to be too quick to dismiss what has been reported or conclude too quickly that we no longer have an issue in our community. Although there were errors found on the EPA's report, this case has given all of us the opportunity to become more aware of the environment we live in, and has prompted us to identify weaknesses in our current operation and urge us to find solutions. People's lives are much more important than real estate value!
We all need to be more actively involved in caring for our environment and there is still a lot of work ahead - both short term and long term. It was therefore very wise for the City to have retained an air quality specialist, crisis communications consultant and an attorney to fully investigate and respond to the community's concerns regarding the potential health issues and the City's reputation. These professionals should be able to address all areas of concern expressed by Cerritos residents, and be able to make formal requests from the EPA, the AQMD and Heraeus/PGP for any information related to the air pollution issue.