By Eric Sunswheat

The Independant Coast Observer - 4/26/01

On Friday, April 27, at 9:30 a.m. or soon after, a continuing seemingly baseless Superior Court case filed by the County is scheduled to be heard in Ukiah against Barbara and Geoffrey Gould, dba Parrot Preservation Society ( <www.parrotpro.com> click on "Banish Our Parrots").

The Goulds are operating an endangered species parrot and macaw farm in Point Arena. Chicks are wholesaled to a single source in Nebraska, and the Goulds market decorative feathers which molt twice a year, a fiber for use in ceremonial and religious worship. The Goulds' attorneys allege significant injustices in the county's attempt to deprive these farmers of their use of agriculturally zoned private property on the coast.

If hate crime statutes against racial bias were applicable to farm animals, including bird species as defined in County and State statutes, I am certain the Supervisors and County administration are guilty as charged. My opinion is that this case could ultimately cost the County the sum of the entire budget to administer the Civil Division of the District Attorney's office under Barry Vogel, which is not expected to survive the August budget hearings.

As long as normal biosecurity measures are employed, according to top industry consultants there is no additional health risk to raising these rare and endangered species of parrots and macaws, that were principally collected 20 to 30 years ago, when compared with turkeys confined to produce eggs and being fed medicated feed at the Nicholas Farms operation on the Stornetta ranch across the street.

For the last 20 years Nicholas has received advice from university advisors to break up their "grandparent" flock to reduce the potential of an avian disease outbreak, and thus diffuse a significant threat to egg production for the turkey meat raising industry statewide. Instead, Nicholas has chosen to continue the methodical liquidation of millions of dollars of corporate farm properties on the central and southern California coast.

I don't believe it is fair or just for the Supervisors to continue with a legal strategy of groundless moves with the misconception that the County is "saving" ten jobs on the turkey ranch, while conspiring for the economic ruin of the parrot farm that provides at least two jobs, and perhaps more when the County stops blocking issuance of permits for barns and employee housing.

The county's only hope to prevail is if the Goulds are driven close to bankruptcy by their own attorneys' bills and the court expenses. A settlement agreement is in order or the continued risk exists of financial hemorrhaging in a line item of the County budget, through the trial process.

What we see exposed here, if the full breadth of documents in the Point Arena parrot case is examined, is the continued operating strategy of these Supervisors, with questionable actions by departmental staff. The case is an example of the current majority of the Supervisors' drive to prevail in public policy controversial issues to serve the short term private special interests that put them in office. Their actions could be construed as the misappropriation of public funds, and perhaps even a failure to serve the oath of office to which they are sworn, all under the guise of preserving local jobs for sustainable agriculture.

I had some hope with the approval of an incremental Supervisors' pay increase and lump sum back payment earlier this year, that they would "wake up and smell the coffee" of increased financial compensation from taxpayers and strive to serve the public well. What I see is a ruse to maximize the development of land parcels to the detriment of endangered species and diversified quality of life for all, under the guise of generating increasing tax revenue for maintenance of salary increases for department heads and the Board of Supervisors.

The bigger picture might be seen if the County reestablished the position of long term planner, instead of using the complement of "cookie cutter" contracts with private firms to facilitate an updated General Plan. In contrast we have "streamlined operations" with knee jerk decisions partially based on the participation of those members of the public who are tenacious enough to keep showing up for meetings with the Planning Commission and Supervisors.

We could hear from county planners on the effects of building design and community dynamics in terms of future planning ideals, in part by looking at the work of Frank Lloyd Wright and Jonathan Ott, but neophyte planning staff members are muzzled from expressing their personal opinions in the planning process at risk of losing their jobs, according to Pam Townsend, interviewed by Planning Commissioner Don Lipmanson on April 17th during his monthly Tuesday evening KZYX/Z radio show.

In Mendocino County, planning ideals may be forever out the window and the traditional planning operational dictum maintained, that is of planning being a compromise of competing economic forces that in effect often pave over agricultural land or plant monocrops from fence row to fence row, unless the body politic finds a majority voice to make its concerns known.

We may collectively suffer the consequences of trying to challenge County policy in court with such bellwether laws as the California Environmental Quality Act or the Endangered Species Act in an isolated case here or there. Filing lawsuits is an option of the somewhat wealthy and not so well organized, if we cannot have responsible elected officials due to arguably unreasonable laws on election campaign fund raising.

[ICO staff edited this submission for length.]