The Tribune turned DA’s routine safety memo into a moral emergency | Opinion

Basic risk management

The Tribune’s editorial criticizing the District Attorney’s Office safety memo says more about the paper’s assumptions than about the memo itself.

The memo clearly states, “Currently, we are not aware of any specific threats.”

That is an odd place to begin if the goal were to paint protesters as dangerous. What follows is standard workplace guidance any employer might issue ahead of a large public gathering downtown. Avoid congested areas when possible. Travel in pairs after work. Stay aware of surroundings. Report suspicious activity.

This is not demonization. It is basic risk management.

The editorial treats the existence of a precaution as proof of condemnation, as if acknowledging that crowds sometimes warrant planning is itself a political act. By that logic, traffic advisories are moral judgments and police presence at parades is an insult to marchers.

To sustain its argument, the piece drifts far from San Luis Obispo, importing incidents from Los Angeles and Santa Barbara that have nothing to do with the memo in question. Context disappears, and implication takes its place.

Peaceful protest deserves respect. So does the responsibility of public agencies to look out for their employees. Those principles are not in conflict unless we insist on pretending that prudence is provocation.

If issuing routine safety advice is fearmongering, then so is looking both ways before crossing the street.

Erik Gorham

Santa Margarita

DA’s comments on Alex Pretti

So here we are again. The SLO County DA is now criticizing Alex Pretti for legally carrying a concealed weapon during the protests against the behavior/conduct of ICE agents in Minneapolis. The inference of his comment is that this lack of judgment on Mr. Pretti’s part may have contributed to his death.

Although one can certainly question the wisdom of carrying a weapon at any time in public, the ICE agents involved in this senseless killing apparently removed the weapon from Mr. Pretti prior to firing numerous shots into him.

Perhaps the real discussion here should be not about whether Mr. Pretti should have been carrying his concealed weapon, but rather why are the ICE agents so heavily armed in the first place. Automatic weapons, really?

So far, the dastardly desperados ICE seems to have captured have been elderly men in their boxer shorts, kids on their way to or from school, people in their cars, at their places of employment, at the hospital or their local courthouse. There doesn’t appear to have been any shootout with the “worst of the worst” who are supposedly being rounded up, save for the two unarmed victims who appear to have been killed unnecessarily by over-zealous, perhaps inadequately trained, federal agents.

Richard Mortensen

San Luis Obispo

To my fellow agitators

We’re American patriots. They call us agitators.

Our founders agitated against rule by a monarchy, the women’s suffrage movement agitated for the right to vote, and the civil rights movement agitated for equality and justice for all.

We’re now agitating for the domestic tranquility, general welfare and blessings of liberty for which our country was established, as declared in the Preamble to our Constitution.

We agitate against the sadistic brutality unleashed on our neighbors by masked, unidentified, heavily armed agents of a tyrannical federal government. We’re deeply offended, wounded and angered by the assault on our freedom and sense of security on which we’ve based our ways of life.

We refuse to be intimidated and sacrifice our rights hoping to avoid the abuse inflicted on others. We exercise the responsibility necessary to exercise those rights and ensure the respect for all people guaranteed by our fundamental principles.

We know that some water and soap in the washing machine won’t clean our clothes. It takes some agitation. We’re gathering on March 28 to agitate for our rights to speak, assemble and demand redress of our grievances in the third No Kings demonstration. You’re welcome to join us.

David Broadwater

Atascadero

Oversized salaries in SLO

There was a time in the not-too-distant past when people in San Luis Obispo who wished to serve in the city government showed some interest by learning about the policies, players and processes. Some sought appointments to an advisory body, while others attended city meetings, shared opinions and joined public debate.

Then came the time when some were less interested in serving, and more about getting paid. People who had never even been to a City Council meeting or served on an advisory committee were running for office.

The stipend in recognition of one’s efforts displeased those desiring a living wage. And when elected and finding out how much work was involved, they voted to increase their compensation. There are no time clocks punched when one is a council member. Some do lots of work and some, well, not so much. I averaged 30 hours a week. Some didn’t even bother to read the agendas.

Our City Council members and mayors are treated very well. State-wide conferences are paid for, including travel. Yes, there are free lunches, and sometimes dinners. Now, once again, the SLO City Council has voted to adopt new pay rates, awarding far higher salaries than comparable cities. For example:

Mayor

San Luis Obispo: $58,368

Santa Cruz: $28,190

Santa Maria: $23,484

Council Member

San Luis Obispo: $33,360

Santa Cruz: $20,524

Santa Maria: $20,484

Christine Mulholland

San Luis Obispo

Rev up the chain saws!

City Council, please spare me your “mournful tears” for the tree that is being slaughtered to “make way” for the “progress” at Monterey and Nipomo streets.

I didn’t realize how much “caring” the City Council had expressed for the loss of the tree until I read The Tribune article, “Uproot a tree — or upend a new theater?”.

I was particularly impressed by Ms. Shoresman’s comment that “we are a council and community that cares for our trees very much.” Well, I’d hate to see how you’d treat our trees if you didn’t care for them “very much.” I mean, you can’t care much less than by killing them, can you? No, wait: You could torture them first, right?

I’m reminded of what W.C. Fields said when he was asked if he liked children: “Certainly,” he said, “as long as they’re properly cooked.”

Ms. Marx, I’m sure the loss of beauty, shade, oxygen production and habitat accommodation that this slaughter entails will be significantly mitigated by your “symbolic vote” regarding a “tragedy of errors.”

And Mr. Boswell, I love your reference to “long-term planning.” You mean, like the “planning” you’ve done for the series of gargantuan buildings that will eventuate along Monterey between California and Santa Rosa, now that you’ve built that monstrosity of an eyesore at California and Monterey? You can’t deny the next blight-building, now that you’ve okayed this one, right?

Onward! Bring out the chainsaws! (I wish I had bought stock in the company that supplies the city with chainsaws and wood chippers.)

Will Powers

San Luis Obispo