Dear Editor,

Dear Editor,


In re: Mr. S. Millards’ letter in the August 7-13, 2008 issue of The Valley Journal about the Santa Ynez airport.

First, the Santa Ynez Airport is not an airport at all, it is a landing strip.

How ironic that Mr. Millard should choose Mark Twain’s quote of Ben Franklin’s saying, “those who do not read the newspaper are uninformed and those who do are misinformed.” By right of Mr. Samuel Clemens’ character as a commonsensical author of so much truth about the leaven of the Pharisees. I must inject my own point here to the uninformed-misinformed citizens of this land and add my two cents to yet another bag of helium temporarily escaping the laws of physics only to realize that Sir Isaac Newton got beaned with a mere apple to realize that gravity exists.

Petitio Principii (the question begs to be asked). How can a landing strip somehow mysteriously appear in a gullible public’s eye as an airport? Is it yet another case of the old AIBM formula (as if by magic)?


In an age where reason is continually being redefined (spun) to suit the needs of our fellow citizens and their personal agenda of public policy, one has to wonder what true purpose self interest has to do with the rest of us sheeple trying to hold afternoon tea and use our cordless phones outside when suddenly someone’s private plane struggles to break free of the earth with its drowning noise pollution? Public verses private issues?

When I was a young teenager growing up on the Central Coast, I use to love to watch the Dean Martin Show. In black and white, of course. One viewer’s letter asked old Dino what color his eyes were, and without a moment’s pause Dean Martin looked at the camera ( and then the audience) and stated that he “had 2 blues ones and one brown one.” It appeared obvious to this impressionable young viewer that the censors were asleep (or high on cocaine) when this little beauty slipped by their blue screen of death (Bill Gates’ experience) censor button. We all busted up!


Back on track – though, so’s not to make a long story longer — in Twain’s account of “The Man Who Corrupted Hadleysburg” we are confronted by the town hater longing desperately to be on the “ Ninteeners” (one of the nineteen original founders of Hadleysburg, “a most honest and upright town in all the region about … [whose] reputation [remained] unsmirched during three generations, and was prouder of it than of any other possession.”)

So as the valley’s uninformed mingle with the valley’s misinformed. Small wonder that the public taxpayer continues to be abused as another endless source of revenue (for a private sector) to support private infrastructure being overly protected by that Good Ole Boys Club in these areas, Law and Justice, Courts and Administration. This does not even include this massive bureaucracy sucking the life blood right out from the area’s working middle class who are being systemically driven into poverty and homelessness by these insane public employees pretending to be good shepherds & stewards of land. Give me a break! That’s my two cents.


Samuel Keintana

Santa Ynez


Dear Editor,


Regarding Nancy Crawford-Hall’s editorial of Aug. 21 in which she expresses confusion about the debate over expanded drilling as a solution to our current oil conundrum, perhaps I can help clarify the issue for her.

First, no matter how one feels about expanded drilling offshore and in the [Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge], there can be no debate that our world’s oil reserves are dwindling. Fossil fuels are a resource which is rapidly depleting. In short, the gas tank is half empty, not half full, and with increased demand from developing countries, such as China, the demand will only increase and the supply will only decline. And it is happening very quickly.


Nancy expresses skepticism at the idea that it will take ten years or more for new drilling to yield meaningful results. The truth is, if we were to begin drilling today in those areas currently closed to drilling, the price of oil would decline by no more than $1.44 per barrel. With a barrel of oil going for around $130 right now, the new oil would not be making much of a dent in overall prices. Worse, the U.S Energy Information Administration, an independent statistical agency within the Department of Energy, concluded recently that this new drilling, were it to begin today, would have its largest impact ($1.44 a barrel) 20 years down the road, not ten. This is fact, as unpleasant as it is.

The United States, long the largest consumer of fossil fuels, currently consumes about 27% of the world’s oil. Yet we make up only 5% of the world’s population. Clearly, our use of oil is disproportionate and cannot reasonably continue at its current rate. The reality is clear and not confusing at all: we have used up most of the world’s oil already, and the supply will be gone entirely, if not in our lives then in our children’s.


The politics of the future will, by necessity, have to be more visionary and nimble than the politics of the last century. In order to survive, we will have to adapt to our reality: dwindling oil, eroding water supplies, global warming. And we will have to adapt quickly or perish.

Sure, drill if you want. I am not necessarily against prudent and selective drilling. But don’t expect it to save us. It won’t. We will have to use our brains to get us out of our energy problems because drilling is a woefully short term solution for a long term problem.


Michael Clear



Dear Editor,


The beautiful Santa Ynez Valley certainly is facing some interesting challenges by development interests and our own government.  A case in point is the discussion about federal reserved water rights and that the Santa Ynez Band tried to get the local water district to help them get these water rights.

The reason people should be alarmed is that local, state and federal government have found a handy way to do deals behind our backs.  A lot of the deal making has to do with development.  More development means more property taxes to the government.

By joining with a quasi-sovereign tribal government that is completely unaccountable to the public, development can be orchestrated outside the eye of the public.  The long awaited community plan to protect open space and agriculture becomes completely worthless. 


For the most part these casino tribes are a scam.  Say a lie enough times and it becomes fact.   In our case the scam is the claim that the Santa Ynez Band are descendants of a 10,000-year-old Chumash tribe whose aboriginal territory is 7,000 square miles from Paso Robles to Malibu and Kern County to the Northern Channel Islands.   The Santa Ynez leadership and their attorneys have stated this in senate testimony and on the radio.

You have to hand it to them because no one in our government is taking any action to challenge them. 

The fact is that there was no single Chumash political entity in this area to support their claim of being descendants of a 10,000 year old tribe.  It is difficult to know for sure, but historical accounts generally agree that there were about 50 different politically independent villages in this area.  Their commonality was that they spoke six to eight related languages. Although they were related languages, they were different. 


Why does this matter?  It matters because this is how casino tribes expand their power.  They claim an area is their “aboriginal territory” and then they claim they have the rights to water in that area or the right to purchase and then place land in that area into what is called federal trust and out of accountability of the public.

This not the only part of the scam.  The bottom line is that the roughly 154 members of the Santa Ynez Band are only members because in the early 1900’s  they or their relatives were living on land in Santa Ynez and they were provided federal assistance. They did not have to be Chumash to live there. They didn’t even have to be Indian to live there.

They are now worth hundreds of millions of dollars because they lived in the right place at the right time to receive federal assistance, and years later our federal government decided that these groups of people living on certain lands who received federal assistance could be called a tribal government. 

It is pretty ironic because there are probably hundreds if not thousands of people who actually are Chumash. They are not entitled to any of the Chumash Casino gambling windfall.  They did not live in the right place at the right time.


John Jakers



Dear Editor,


Loved the deer article on the ‘dear’ ol’ San Lucas. When my dad, the game warden, moved into house No. 5 at Cachuma Village in 1960, your dad thought God was finally on his side about the “preserve” idea of your grandmother.


Joanie Brundige-Baker

Flagstaff, AZ