Regarding Richardson Grove, one question: “how is it that ANY business, large or small, is allowed to determine the fate of a California state park, land that belongs to everyone in the entire state?”
The Humboldt County representative for Economic Development mentioned, at a public forum (Wednesday, Feb. 17, Bayside), that there are 15 Humboldt County businesses that need the road widened through the grove so that they can have bigger STAA trucks. Apparently cutting the trees allows them to cut their business expenses and make more money. That's nice for the businesses, but what about the rest of the people in the state of California?
Where does it say in our state laws that a state park, such as Richardson Grove, can be rearranged to suit the business needs of any one particular section of the state? Does this mean that any state park in California can be rearranged to suit the business needs of any local community? Think of all the state parks you know and what it would be like if they are subject to the whims of the personal needs of any portion of the local population.
Richardson Grove is not a county park. It does not belong only to the people of Humboldt County. It belongs to the whole state ... all the people of California, not just those who live in the northern half of the state.
No matter how desperate they are, local businessmen do not have the right to disturb trees held in public trust, just to better their own, individual profit/loss margins, particularly when their personal gain is the public's loss. When these giants die because their roots have been severed in the attempt to widen the road, everyone in the state of California will be the losers.
Wake up, county supervisors! This wrong-headed “proposed project” is not in the highest good for the greatest numbers. It represents the kind of short-sighted thinking that has, in the past, resulted in impoverishment for all.
Glenda Hesseltine resides in Eureka.