Letters
- Details
- Written by: Andrea Anderson
The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (originally HR 4040) was passed as a result of several incidents where large companies/corporations were outsourcing to China which allowed lead to be used in the manufacturing of their products. And, on the surface, passing a bill to “protect our children” by mandatory testing of children’s products may sound like a very noble thing. After all, no one wants to purchase a product with lead in it which may come in contact with their child.
However, what the lawmakers failed to see is how the small business person and other pubic/charitable organizations here in the United States of America would be affected by this new law. Now everything from libraries, thrift shops, used bookstores and used clothing stores (and a host of other businesses/organizations) are faced with the uphill battle of how to approach/combat the problem when the price of the testing often far exceeds the price of the products they. provide.
It seems the only option the lawmakers have left for these businesses and organizations at the moment, is to strip their shelves of product. However, in most cases, doing so will force them into financial ruin.
And, I have to ask, do we really need this when the economy is already on the decline and small businesses/organizations are already struggling, especially when more and more are going to be relying on these small businesses/organizations as the financial times get tougher and the push for supporting a local economy gets stronger?
Not only will this law affect businesses it will affect general public. There are many people (an increasing amount, since the economy is worsening) who rely on many of these small businesses/organizations to provide items to their children which they might not be able to buy firsthand due to the economy.
Many of these shops are also run by charities who support local communities charitably often providing food, clothing and shelter. Clothing for children, more often than not. I have to wonder how it is going to affect them.
Could there have been another solution to the problem posed by these big companies outsourcing to China without regulation? Well, there was a day, once upon a time, not so long ago, when a company’s reputation was its regulation and screwing the customer was not only considered bad business but bad for business.
Not so long ago, when a company did wrong it would lead to the loss of customers, bad press/publicity, a criminal/civil investigation/lawsuit, boycotts and ultimately financial difficulty and financial ruin of the specific company who did wrong.
In my humble opinion, directly holding responsible and punishing the specific company who does wrong isn’t necessarily a bad thing and a much better alternative to punishing innocent people who have done nothing wrong.
It seems like this legislative approach is simply going to create more of a problem than a solution.
Andrea Anderson lives in Lakeport.
{mos_sb_discuss:4}
- Details
- Written by: Patrick J. Saunders
This is an obvious witch hunt to shift the blame from the sheriff's department.
Call Oprah, Call Ted Turner and CNN … we need to humiliate Deputy District Attorney John Langan and show him up as the backwood lawyer he is.
Patrick J. Saunders lives in San Diego.
{mos_sb_discuss:4}
- Details
- Written by: Richard B. Cooper
If, for whatever reason, the inspector deems it necessary for the property owner to perform additional tests, the property owner is required to perform those additional tests at the property owner’s expense. Should the additional tests not be to the liking of the inspector, major work, thus major expenses, would be burdened on the hapless property owner.
Then there is the extreme. Should the property not be able accommodate a new system, the property would be uninhabitable. At best the property loses all value because it cannot be sold. At worst, the property owner must abandon the property completely.
If the state or county believes that a problem exists as a result of septic systems, which were installed legally, then the removal of septic systems is a public benefit. All of which is only the government's current opinion. Thus, the government’s perceived problem should not be levied against the innocent property owner. The government should bear the full cost of placing the property on a sewer system. Maybe we make this part of the stimulus package.
Remember the Golden Gate Bridge and the 25 cent bridge toll. To convince the public to tax themselves to build the bridge the proponents pointed out that the toll would end after 30 years, highway tax dollars would pay for the maintenance and generations to come would have a beautiful bridge. Well, the toll is now around $6.
Examples of the continual expansion of taxation and regulation permeate the history of our government. Why should any property owner expect this new regulation to be any different? It is wise to believe that once the regulation is adopted it will only become more restrictive and expensive with time.
Richard B. Cooper lives in Healdsburg.
{mos_sb_discuss:4}
- Details
- Written by: Paul Breunig
As I sat and listened to the presentation made by Richard Knoll to the Lakeport City Council on Tuesday night, many thoughts ran through my mind and what I was going to say. After walking away from the podium that night, I never really said what I wanted to.
To set the story straight, on what I really wanted to say, the city of Lakeport has properties in its boundaries that are basically doing nothing, and some are vacant land. They have been put up for sale over the years, with no takers or qualified buyers.
Now, the city has an opportunity to do something with the least desirable ones and derive monies from them through the sale to their redevelopment agency. The city now has monies to put into the general fund to use as they deem fit.
First and foremost, they want to take care of police and fire departments, which, we all know, are necessary for the protection and needs of the citizens of Lakeport. The secondary use of these funds would be for small business stimulation loans, that would help our local businesses get through these troubled economic times.
We, as an employer, don’t want to lay off employees, or even let them go, because there isn't the business to support them. When businesses close, people lose their jobs and it all trickles down through the community. These monies should help get us through these times, and isn't meant to just enhance anyone's business.
Furthermore, there has to be shown to the city the financial means to repay them for the loans. Credibility is what will make this program work.
Once our city, county, state and country get back on track, the redevelopment agency can offer these purchased lands back up for sale and recover the monies that were originally used to acquire them, and would go back into the redevelopment of downtown Lakeport, remodeling of the business fronts, creation of the lakefront area for parks and beautification of our precious asset, our city and its tourist attractions.
Lastly, for the record, most businesses will dig into their reserves, create credit lines and sell off assets to raise capital to keep their dream going. But, when there is no one or no financial institution to obtain monies from, where do go then?
After being in business in Lake County for over 45 years and 13 of those years in the city of Lakeport, we have seen the ups and downs. This economic downturn we are having now is unlike anything I have experienced before. But, with all of us working at the solution, we will get through it.
Paul Breunig is owner of Hillside Honda in Lakeport.
{mos_sb_discuss:4}
How to resolve AdBlock issue?