FBI Director Kash Patel is rekindling a dangerous and ugly history surrounding the nation’s top law enforcement agency.

It is outrageous that Patel is using the agency to intimidate a reporter for The Atlantic magazine who reported earlier this week on his behavior on and off the job. I find it chilling to read how the FBI, under Trump, has returned to the days of agents harassing the press, infiltrating any group that questions government policies, and tracking the private lives of critics everywhere.

Years ago, I had an up-close brush with that FBI mentality.

In my case, I learned about a secret FBI memo that was distributed in 1990, targeting my role as a journalist. It had been circulated among top brass, including former FBI Director William Sessions.

The memo was written by the FBI’s Richard Held, who oversaw its San Francisco office. The Bay Area was a hotbed of protests, activists, and political groups, and Held had people everywhere as informants. A Washington Post article once cited Held’s use of “dirty tricks” and spying against alleged political radicals in the 1960s and early seventies.

In the memo, Held’s office wanted to know whether it should take their concerns about “Subject: Mike Geniella” to the New York Times, then the owner of The Press Democrat, or to the local publisher. Their concerns included the reporter’s alleged attempt to cast the agency in a bad light in reporting on Earth First! related prosecutions in Arizona and Montana.

The FBI memo was circulated 35 days before I was accused by local PD editors of creating “the possibility of a perceived bias” after I agreed to an interview by a freelance writer who, in turn, allowed the Anderson Valley Advertiser to publish her article. The AVA was at the time held in contempt by the editors, who did not consider the Boonville weekly “responsible journalism.”

I was removed from the timber beat at a time when logging-related issues were coming to a head. It was an action that drew immediate attention locally, and from outside news media and the Columbia Journalism Review.

At the time, I did not know of the secret FBI memo or its role in my banishment from covering timber issues. With the help of the San Francisco Newspaper Guild, I challenged my removal. I had refused to sign a statement written by the editors that I acknowledged creating the “possibility of a perceived bias.”

Three months later, after the statewide initiative Forest Forever was defeated at the polls, the editors relented, and I returned to writing about contentious logging practices on the North Coast.

Four years passed before I learned of the secret FBI memo that took issue with my reporting. It was written in August 1990 and distributed to the chain in the agency’s Washington, D.C. Headquarters to Sessions.

The document was uncovered during legal depositions in a civil rights violation lawsuit filed against the FBI by Earth First! Activists Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney. A federal jury on June 11, 2002, returned a verdict of $4.5 million at the end of a six-week trial in a federal court in Oakland. The jury found that six of the seven FBI and Oakland Police defendants framed the two activists. The jury declared 80 percent of the damage was for violation of their First Amendment rights to speak out and organize politically in defense of the environment.

For my part, I filed repeated Freedom of Information Act requests about the memo once it was uncovered. I tracked an FBI official in Washington, D.C. who managed such matters. He declared that the memo I described did not exist. I recall scoffing and telling him that while we were talking on the telephone, I held a copy of the official memo in my hand.

Editors, when confronted with that copy, contended that they were unaware of it, and that to their knowledge, no one at the Press Democrat or the NYT ever had been contacted by the FBI. A supervising editor suggested that the FBI was only looking for a ‘correction.’

I accepted the editors’ assurances despite misgivings. I had a mortgage payment to make and a family to support. My experience, however, lingers because I felt intimidation and the threat to my family’s well-being.

Lellani Clark, a writer for The Bohemian, a Sonoma County publication, addressed the issue in a 2012 article.

https://bohemian.com/judi-bari-the-fbi-and-the-press-democrat-reporter-mike-geniella-on-an-unsolved-case-1/

The following statement was sent to us by PG&E in response to our request for a comment on USDA’s intervention in the Potter Valley Hydroelectric Project decommissioning proceedings being considered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission:

PG&E is actively supporting the Eel-Russian Project Authority’s effort to build a water diversion facility which would divert water from the Eel River to the East Branch Russian River, allowing flows to continue after PG&E decommissions the project. PG&E worked for years to find a new owner for the project, but ultimately no third party stepped forward to execute a transaction. PG&E made the difficult decision to stop our relicensing effort of the project, as it was not economical for our customers to continue operating the project. No entity applied to take over the relicensing of the Potter Valley Project during FERC’s window period after PG&E announced it would not relicense the project. The surrender process is lengthy and stakeholders will continue to have an opportunity to engage in the FERC proceeding.

Recognizing that the removal of both Scott and Cape Horn dams is a significant change, as PG&E moves forward with the decommissioning process, the company remains focused on safe operation of the dams, careful planning for their removal, and clear and consistent communication. We will continue to engage with interested stakeholders, including the U.S. Forest Service, Cal Fire, Tribal communities, State and County Farm Bureaus, elected officials and many others.

PG&E expects to see intervenors in the Surrender process. The USDA is often one of the interveners in projects that affect or are on USFS properties.

California is quietly rewriting the rules for how rural property can be used — and for many in Mendocino County, it’s a long-awaited second chance. A new state law and proposed changes to county code will allow private landowners to host low-impact camping, glamping, and RV accommodations with fewer barriers than before.

For a region still reeling from the collapse of the cannabis economy, this shift is nothing short of transformative. Former cultivation sites — many with road access, water systems, solar infrastructure, and flat clearings — are suddenly being reimagined not as failed farms, but as future destinations.

The Post-Cannabis Landscape

Mendocino County is full of former cannabis properties selling for 50–80% below their 2019 values. Once-thriving farms in places like Laytonville, Covelo, and Willits are now quiet, overgrown, and listed for a fraction of their former worth.

But while the cannabis dream faded, these properties still have something priceless: acreage, privacy, and proximity to California’s natural beauty. A new “camping on private lands” ordinance will make it possible to legally invite guests to share that beauty — without the exhaustive commercial campground permitting once required.

What the New Law Allows

Assembly Bill 518, signed into law on October 1, 2025 by Governor Gavin Newsom, is designed to support rural tourism and economic recovery. It will soon to be reflected in Mendocino County’s evolving land use code. While details will vary by parcel and zoning, new rules generally allow:

• Small-scale campgrounds on qualifying parcels, often with simplified or ministerial permits.

• Temporary and semi-permanent structures, including yurts, canvas tents, and tiny cabins.

• Eco-friendly “glamping” operations with renewable energy and low-impact infrastructure.

• Farm stays and recreation-based lodging that complement existing agricultural uses.

The state’s goal is to boost outdoor recreation access while giving rural landowners a viable alternative income source. For many, that means the chance to turn financial hardship into hospitality success.

Why County-Maintained Dirt Roads Matter

One of the most important details in Mendocino County’s evolving camping ordinance is where these new uses will be allowed. Many rural properties — especially former cannabis farms — are located on county-maintained dirt roads, not paved ones. These roads have historically served residential, agricultural, and commercial uses, and they provide safe, reliable access for emergency services, utility vehicles, school buses, and year-round residents.

Restricting private camping operations only to paved roads would exclude the majority of eligible parcels in areas like Laytonville, Leggett, Covelo, and Branscomb. It would also undermine the very purpose of the ordinance: revitalizing rural land and supporting economic recovery. Including county-maintained dirt roads ensures fairness, accessibility, and a realistic pathway for struggling landowners to convert failed cannabis properties into legitimate, regulated, revenue-generating businesses. Allowing camping on these county-maintained dirt roads aligns with California’s rural tourism goals while still protecting safety and environmental standards.

From Farmers to Hosts

The same qualities that once made a property perfect for cannabis — remoteness, water access, sunlight, and cleared pads — make it ideal for camping and retreats.

Former growers are now exploring conversions like:

• Wellness retreats with yoga, sound baths, or forest bathing.

• Boutique campgrounds that cater to Bay Area visitors seeking weekend escapes.

• Event and festival grounds using existing roads and clearings.

• Educational farm stays that reconnect visitors with the land.

• Off-grid ecolodges powered by solar and rainwater catchment.

And with property prices still deeply discounted, new buyers are snapping up land with built-in infrastructure and turning it into revenue-generating escapes.

Navigating the Transition

Of course, these opportunities come with red tape. Old abatements, liens, and unpermitted work still follow many properties from their cannabis pasts. Before launching any new venture, it’s critical to:

• Research the property’s regulatory history. Know what violations or liens exist.

• Consult Mendocino County Planning & Building on new camping allowances and parcel eligibility.

• Develop a compliance and permit strategy that aligns with the latest ordinances.

• Budget realistically for cleanup, upgrades, and environmental review if needed.

Once-in-a-Generation Opening

The cannabis era transformed Mendocino County’s landscape — but now, a new chapter is unfolding. The combination of low land prices and favorable camping ordinances means rural California is poised for revival through recreation and restoration.

If you’ve ever dreamed of owning a retreat center, nature resort, or boutique campground, there has never been a better time.

Jon Kennedy, founder and CEO of CivAssist, is an influential local government advocate with experience as a county supervisor, city manager, non-profit director and serial entrepreneur. He’s assisted dozens of small agencies with Brown Act and Public Records Request guidance. (Photo: Chris Pugh - Ukiah Daily Journal)

Anyone who has ever read the Brown Act — California’s 70-year-old love letter to local government transparency — knows it’s a strange beast. Half of it is common sense, and the other half reads like the final exam from a community-college class called Advanced Bureaucracy: Theory and Practice.

So it’s no surprise when agencies technically follow the law but still leave the public feeling like something is being hidden behind a velvet curtain. Take the recent Hopland Public Utility District situation. Their closed session was properly agendized under Government Code §54956.9(d)(2). On paper, that’s the correct citation for discussing anticipated litigation. Strictly by statute, the board met the legal threshold.

But here’s the rub:

Complying with the law and practicing good transparency are not the same thing. The law says that when a board goes into closed session under (d)(2), they don’t have to identify the claimant, the letter, the dispute, or the triggering event. They don’t have to say it was about a Cure and Correct letter. They don’t have to say much at all unless they take formal action. “Direction given to staff” is legally sufficient.

But legal sufficiency is the floor, not the ceiling. And for the public — the people paying the bills, attending meetings, and showing up with pitchforks (or at least the modern equivalent: Facebook comments) — the floor often feels like a trapdoor.

There’s nothing in the Brown Act that prevents a board from voluntarily saying something like: “Tonight’s closed session involved reviewing a Cure and Correct letter regarding our October 9 meeting. The board discussed the matter with legal counsel and provided direction to staff to prepare a response.”

That is perfectly legal.

It doesn’t give away attorney-client privilege.

It doesn’t undermine the agency’s position.

And it gives the public what they always want: context.

Good transparency isn’t about spilling secrets — it’s about reducing the mystery so people don’t assume the worst. Most frustration in local government doesn’t come from wrongdoing; it comes from silence that looks like wrongdoing.

Some boards understand this instinctively. Others cling so tightly to the minimum requirements that the public ends up imagining conspiracies where none exist. And that gap — between bare compliance and good behavior — is where trust erodes.

Ironically, misunderstandings like these are what pushed me to build CivAssist, the agenda and minute platform I created years ago. I watched agencies get beat up for sloppy agenda language, vague closed session descriptions, and accidental omissions. Not malicious — just avoidable.

CivAssist forces clean noticing because it takes human error and accidental ambiguity out of the equation. But software aside, the real solution is cultural: Read the room.

If half the audience shows up asking about a Cure and Correct letter, and everyone knows that’s why closed session exists that night, then giving the bare-minimum statutory report isn’t caution

— it’s gasoline on a fire.

Transparency isn’t just a legal requirement. It’s a behavior. And the truth is: 95% of the time, boards can safely be more open than they think they can. The Brown Act protects attorney-client privilege and strategic discussions — not the secrecy of the topic itself. Agencies can be clearer, calmer, and more communicative without crossing any legal line.

If boards offered even a little more voluntary clarity, the public would be calmer, meetings would be shorter, and reporters wouldn’t have to play forensic detective with partial information.

Everyone wins.

Because at the end of the day, the Brown Act isn’t supposed to be a mystery thriller. If your residents have to hire a lawyer, a journalist, and a bloodhound just to figure out what happened in closed session, something has gone off the rails.

This letter was originally sent to the Mendocino Council of Governments on August 22, 2025. Mendocino Railway President and CEO Robert Pinoli responds in the post below.

In past transportation plans the Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG) included the Mendocino Railway (also know as the Skunk Train) as a rail transportation option for commuting and freight hauling within Mendocino County’s transportation planning portfolio. As MCOG prepares to update the County’s transportation plan, it is inappropriate to continue characterizing the Skunk train as a public transportation and/or freight hauling service for the following reasons.

The Skunk Train is not a transportation provider, it is a private out-and-back entertainment excursion train experience for tourists visiting Mendocino County. It is no more a form of transportation than a merry-go-round ride at the county fair or group boats offering a fishing & whale watching experience along the coast.

Unlike legitimate public rail transportation which provide the public with passenger and/or freight transportation between communities and cities, Mendocino Railway’s Skunk Train does neither.

Since the last update to the County transportation plan, Mendocino Railway’s Skunk Train services have been reviewed and assessed both by federal, state, and local agencies as well as by the courts. In each of these reviews and court proceedings, Mendocino Railway has failed to present a compelling case that it provides anything more than an excursion train entertainment experience for its customers.

The California Public Utilities Commission has repeatedly reviewed the Skunk Train’s operations and determined Mendocino Railway is an excursion train:

In 2022, the California Public Utilities Commission’s Assistant General Counsel clarified the Skunk Trains status as a regulated excursion train:

“The status of Mendocino Railway, has previously been determined by the Commission. In 1977, the California Western Railroad (CWRR) - which was the company operating the excursion service commonly known as the “Skunk Train” at the time - applied to the Commission for status to reduce its commuter passenger services. In the course of this proceeding, the Commission determined (in 1998) that CWRR did not constitute a public utility to the extent it provides excursion rail service, which constituted 90% of its overall business.”*

“The Commission is not aware of any changes to the excursion services provided by Mendocino Railway that would cause a change to its 1998 determination”*

Similarly, the Great Redwood Trail Agency petitioned the federal government to formally abandon the Skunk Train connection to the federal interstate rail system because the Skunk Train has not operated as a interstate passenger train or freight service for more than twenty years.

In its petition, the Agency clearly articulated why Mendocino Railway’s Skunk Train does not and can not provide passenger and freight transportation:

“No freight movements have originated on, terminated on, or otherwise traversed the MR Line since MR purchased it out of bankruptcy in 2004, and no shippers that have been served in the past on the MR Line have a current need for rail service.

Moreover, there are no reasonable prospect of future rail service needs along the MR Line. The MR Line has only been operated for intrastate tourist excursion rail service, called the “Skunk Train,” since its acquisition by MR in 2004.

And the MR Line itself is not even fully traversable from beginning to end due to a tunnel collapse. Moreover, the MR Line will require significant rehabilitation to bring it in line with FRA Class I track standards, (rehabilitation cost estimate is $31,598,000 for MR Line).”**

Likewise, the issue of Mendocino Railway’s status as an excursion train rather than a transportation provider has been adjudicated by the courts. In a 2023 ruling in a lawsuit over the inappropriate use of eminent domain authority by Mendocino Railway, Mendocino County Superior Court Justice Nadel, found Mendocino Railway unable to show sufficient evidence it provides freight service or provides meaningful passenger transportation service to meet the requirements of being a transportation public utility with eminent domain authority.

In explaining the decision, the court based its determination upon a series of undisputed relevant facts.***

• Mendocino Railway’s Articles of Incorporation do not reflect the intent to operate as a railroad.

• There was no designation of Mendocino Railway’s status by the (federal) Surface Transportation Board offered byMendocino Railway.

• In 2015, there was a landslide in “Tunnel No.1” preventing the train from running the full length of the line since that date. No transportation between Fort Bragg and Willits has occurred since the tunnel was closed.

• Mendocino Railway conceded that currently its main function is the operation of a popular excursion train know as the Skunk Train for sightseeing purposes on the line through the redwoods.

• The Skunk Train’s operation is limited to traveling from the Willits station west approximately 7.5 miles before turning around and traveling back to Willits. From Ff. Bragg, due to the tunnel collapse, the train can only travel east for 3.5 miles before it turns around and returns to Ft. Bragg.

• The excursion service generates ninety percent of Mendocino Railway’s income. The other ten percent of Mendocino Railway’s income is from leases and easement revenue.

In making its determination that Mendocino Railway is not a public utility, the court cited California Public Utilities Code section 229, which provides that a “railroad” includes every commercial, interurban, and other railway...owned, controlled, operated, or managed for the public use in the transportation of persons or property. The court further noted that Mendocino Railway did not dispute that “transportation” in the public utility context means “the taking up of persons or property at some point and putting them down at another.” The court also noted, round trip excursions do not qualify as “transportation” under Section 211 of the Public Utilities Code. Most importantly, Mendocino Railway conceded that the term “transportation” excludes excursion services for the purposes of being a public utility.****

The court’s ruling in the Mendocino Railway v John Meyer case is important to MCOG in deciding whether to include or exclude the railway in the county transportation plan. Since the law dictates that excursion services are not transportation, inclusion of such excursion services in a transportation plan is inappropriate. The court’s ruling demonstrates clearly, Mendocino Railway does not qualify in any significant way as a transportation service.

The purpose of the County plan is to provide the county’s best assessment of its transportation needs. Federal and State transportation partners use the plan to assist them planning transportation efforts they hope to accomplish within the county.

It is important that the plan reflects true “transportation” needs. Inclusion of efforts or initiatives that are not transportation, undermine the integrity of the plan and hinder Federal and State partners in their deliberations about how to assist county transportation agencies.

Lastly, MCOG should keep in mind that the purpose of the county transportation plan is to assist public agencies setting priorities for the use of public resources to successfully attain transportation outcomes that further the public interest. In setting priorities, planners must consider the economic viability of transportation initiatives incorporated in transportation plans.

A 2023 assessment of the economic market feasibility of rail service in Mendocino County raised serious questions about the financial viability of Mendocino Railway (or any other rail company) to provide rail transportation service in the county. The assessment prepared by Marie Jones Consulting provided significant evidence that the costs of operating city to city rail service in Mendocino County exceed potential revenues. Further, the assessment determined that truck freight services were more cost effective and provided better service than any possible rail freight service could provide between Fort Bragg, Willits and Cloverdale.

The assessment highlighted several realities that make rail economically un-feasible as a transportation option in Mendocino County:

• The estimated capital investment costs of fully restoring the Fort Bragg to Willits rail line are more than $30 million. Additionally, the estimated on-going annual operation costs are approximately $2.5 million. Total annual estimated rail costs would be over $5.7 million per year.

• The estimated capital investment costs of fully restoring the Willits to Cloverdale rail line are more than $56 million. Additionally, the estimated on-going annual operation costs are approximately $5 million. Total annual estimated rail costs would be over $11 million per year.

• The cost of hauling freight by rail is not competitive compared to the cost of hauling by truck. The cost to transport freight by rail (assuming rail service was available) from Coverdale to Willits would be $458 per ton by rail, vs $29 per ton by truck.

The cost to transport freight by rail between Willits and Fort Bragg would be $608 per ton compared to $38 per ton by truck.*****

• Similarly, there is no evidence that restoring train service between the cities of Fort Bragg, Willits, and Cloverdale would result in sufficient rail passenger and/or freight hauling revenues to offset the full costs of restoring the lines to service.

• In Mendocino County, trucks and autos are more efficient than rail for transporting people and freight in terms of time as well as cost. For example, the average drive time by auto or truck between Coverdale and Fort Bragg is 1 hour and 50 minutes, compared to an estimated 10 hours by rail. The average drive time from Fort Bragg to Willits is 50 minutes compared to an estimated 6 hours by rail.******

• Transportation by auto and truck allows consumers to schedule transportation around their needs and schedule. Rail transportation is scheduled around the needs of the railway to manage its locomotives & rail-cars in order to balance demands from passengers and freight haulers.

• Further, autos and trucks can use alternate routes when roads are closed due to weather or land slides, all rail service is halted when rail tracks are closed due to weather or land slides. Auto and trucks can use roads 24/7 to transport people and freight, trains operate on fixed schedules or when demand is sufficient to justify the costs of a train trip.

• Demand for rail passenger/freight service between cities is entirely theoretical, since neither the Fort Bragg to Willits or the Willits to Cloverdale line are presently in a condition that would allow passenger/freight hauling by rail. Currently, all passenger and freight needs between the communities of Fort Bragg, Willits and Cloverdale are being met by autos and trucks.

In summation, the Mendocino County Regional Transportation Plan and Active Transportation Plan (RTP/ATP) is intended to be a long-range planning document covering a 20-year time span, which includes short and long range transportation projects across all modes of transportation, including motorized, non-motorized, and public transit. It promotes a safe and efficient transportation system, and establishes regional goals that support mobility, economic, and health aims of the region.

As the facts previously cited show, Mendocino County has not had a functioning rail service providing community to community passenger or freight transportation for more than a decade, and no functioning rail connectivity to the interstate system for more than two decades.

Its time to recognize those facts and amend the County’s transportation planning to reflect the realities. Rail passenger and freight transportation is not cost competitive compared to auto and truck transportation. Federal and state goals are not aligned with reestablishing interstate or intrastate rail transportation in Mendocino County. Mendocino Railway, the sole remaining train line operating in the county, functions as an out and back excursion and entertainment train serving the tourist industry. For all these reasons, rail is no longer a viable component of the Mendocino RTP/ATP plan.

Rather, if included in the RTP/ATP, Mendocino Railway’s excursion operations should be deemed part of the multi-modal planning like the Coastal Trail and the Great Redwood Regional Trail, which it most closely resembles.

Sincerely,

Peter McNamee
Fort Bragg, California

Citations

*Letter to Michael Hart, CEO Sierra Railroad Company, from Jonathan C. Kotzot, Assistant 1 General Counsel, Legal Division, Public Utilities Commission August 12, 2022

**Great Redwood Trail Agency - Adverse Abandonment - Mendocino Railway in Mendocino County, California Surface Transportation Board Docket No. AB-1305 (Sub-No. 1)

***Decision After Trial, April 19, 2023, Mendocino Railway v John Meyer Case # SCUK- 4 CVED-2020-74939

****City of St. Helena v Public Utilities Com (2004) 119 Cal. App. 4th 793,902 (Quoting Golden Date Scenic S.S. Lines, Inc. v Public Utilities Com. (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 373

*****Mendocino railway’s advertises a cost of $33 per ton for hauling freight, but according to the cost assessment prepared by Marie Jones Consulting, that is “a fiction” since the actual amount to recover all capitalize rail costs and operating expenses is $608 per ton.

******The assessment estimated rail transportation times based on national rail industry operational standards assuming the rail lines between Fort Bragg, Willits and Coverdale were renovated to federal and state rail requirement standards.

Peter McNamee recently submitted a letter to the Mendocino Council of Governments (MCOG) regarding the draft Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). While Mr. McNamee raises concerns about the inclusion of rail, his conclusions overlook key facts, mischaracterize the role of Mendocino Railway, and risk narrowing the county’s transportation vision at a time when flexibility, sustainability, and long-term resilience are more important than ever.

1. Mendocino Railway is a federally recognized Class III common carrier.

MCOG’s RTP continues to mischaracterize Mendocino Railway and its operations. Since 2004, Mendocino Railway has operated under Surface Transportation Board (STB) jurisdiction as a legitimate Class III common carrier railroad. A recent STB Declaratory Order reaffirmed this status, underscoring its legal standing and potential to serve public transportation and freight needs—not merely as an “amusement ride,” as Mr. McNamee suggests.

2. Rail is among the most environmentally efficient modes of land transport.

Mr. McNamee’s dismissal of rail’s environmental value is at odds with decades of data. Freight rail emits up to 75% less greenhouse gas per ton-mile than trucks. Mr. McNamee’s narrowly focused “point-to-point” fixation is the exact type of thinking that has caused our world’s emission problems.

3. Low-emission Mendocino Railway locomotives. Mr. McNamee wrote regarding Mendocino Railway’s Skunk Train, “The Skunk train relies upon the worst-polluting, most industry-inefficient fossil fueled locomotives in the rail industry.“ Mr. McNamee seems focused on our efforts to preserve historic steam locomotives. Had he researched this topic, he would have learned that we only use historic steam locomotives, however, on approximately 3% of our trips! And while our other locomotives are superior to most other forms of transportation, Mendocino Railway is now upgrading our three primary locomotives to Tier IV – the lowest emission in the nation for fuel-based locomotives! Rather than Mr. McNamee’s naïve characterization, Mendocino Railway is at our industry’s forefront of mixing economic efficiency with environmental sensitivity.

4. Rail supports economic diversification and rural resilience.

While current ridership and freight volumes may be modest, the infrastructure itself is a long-term asset. Rail corridors can support commerce, tourism, emergency logistics, and future opportunities—especially as fuel prices, climate mandates, and supply chain vulnerabilities evolve. Dismissing rail in a 20-year long-range planning document based on present-day usage ignores its strategic potential and speaks to Mr. McNamee’s agenda-driven shortsightedness

5. Environmental concerns are being addressed through modernization.

The Skunk Train’s legacy equipment is being phased out in favor of cleaner, more efficient technology. Moreover, railroads are subject to federal environmental oversight, and Mendocino Railway has initiated remediation and infrastructure upgrades to address any past impacts. These efforts deserve recognition, not blanket condemnation.

6. Multimodal planning is not contradictory, it’s essential.

The draft plan’s inclusion of rail does not undermine its broader goals. On the contrary, a resilient transportation network must include multiple modes—especially in a geographically diverse county like Mendocino. Railway, walking, biking, buses, and cars each serve different needs. Mendocino Railway is working to provide transloads facilities that would facilitate the exchange of goods between trucks and trains, achieving the best advantages of each type of transportation. Excluding rail would artificially constrain future options and contradict the plan’s stated commitment to equity, sustainability, and access.

7. Road Crossings. Mr. McNamee complains about railroad crossing delays. Is he concerned that the daily fleet of Amazon delivery trucks will be delayed getting to his house on the coast? He also writes about life threatening delays, but doesn’t substantiate this claim. Our trains do not simultaneously shut down all crossings in town at the same time and we are not aware of any noteworthy delays.

8. Economic Benefit of the Skunk Train. Mendocino Railway’s Skunk Train is one of the region’s top economic drivers. While Mr. McNamee may be irritated at being delayed occasionally by one of our trains, please know that on average, that train delaying him is bringing $63,000 in local spending to our community.

9. Regional Success of Railroads. It does not require much effort to see the potential benefits of railroads. The Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) railroad in neighboring Sonoma offers freight service and passenger service with record ridership. The demand for their service has motivated them to extend to Healdsburg in 2028 and then to Cloverdale, on the doorstep of Mendocino County. While our county has challenges, we hope regional success of railroads show MCOG the potential for rail in Mendocino County.

In closing, I urge MCOG to maintain a balanced, forward-looking approach. Mendocino County deserves a transportation plan that accurately reflects both current realities and future possibilities. MCOG’s Vision states, “Effective regional governance is about helping every community become more prosperous, equitable, and environmentally sustainable.” We believe Mendocino Railway is at the forefront on delivering on your vision. Rail is part of that vision—not as a nostalgic relic, but as a strategic tool for environmental stewardship, economic vitality, and regional connectivity.

If you’d like to submit a public comment on a local issue, please email it to editor@mendolocal.news for consideration.

The biggest and most profound lesson from the Prop 50 election is the large number of rural counties that voted for Trump in 2024, but rejected Trump in this election. None of the urban counties that voted for Harris in 2024 voted no on prop 50.

It is this shift in conservative mostly rural counties - Lake, Imperial, Merced, Fresno, San Bernardino, Jan Joaquin, and Riverside - and the reduction in Trumps support in the rest of the counties, that speaks volumes that this is a rejection of failed Trump Republican promises.

Frankly, Dems didn’t need to reapportion the congressional districts - given these numbers they could beat Republicans in the current districts; if they prove they can deliver real improvements to voters not just make vague promises.

The real message is - now is the time to earn voter support by improving their lives. Gimmicks like gerrymandering, don’t make voters lives better.

If you’d like to submit a public comment on a local issue, please email it to editor@mendolocal.news for consideration.

The public comment portion of public meetings offers residents a chance to hold power to account, offering insight and perspective their fellow Mendocino residents will not find elsewhere. In this new Mendo Local feature, we provide a recap of public comments to the Mendocino Board of Supervisors and a link to a new Public Comment podcast.

Dee Pallesen, District 5

Board of Supes response to Grand Jury report violates state laws

Pallesen criticized the Board’s response to the Grand Jury report on Planning and Building Services, particularly regarding California Public Resources Code 4290 and Health and Safety code 17958.2. She argued the Board response appeared to have been written by the department under scrutiny, raising concerns of “fox in the henhouse.” She also cited inaccuracies in the Board’s statements about ordinances, possible Brown Act violations, and questioned whether policies and procedures were adequately reviewed by the ad hoc Board of Supervisor’s committee.

Gizmo, Redwood Valley

Siren money allocated to septic repairs

Gizmo objected to the reallocation of PG&E settlement funds originally earmarked for a Redwood Valley siren program promised after the 2017 fires. He said only one of four planned sirens has been tested, while most funds were diverted to other expenses. He declared “no confidence” in the fire board and chief, arguing that without a functional siren system, public safety is jeopardized. He urged the county to hold reimbursement funds until accountability is restored, stressing that sirens save lives in emergencies.

Dolly Riley, Redwood Valley Municipal Advisory Council Chair

Action needed on Community Action Plan

Riley echoed concerns about the unused siren and called for its operation. She also urged the Board to adopt Redwood Valley’s long-developed Community Action Plan into the County General Plan. Finally, she highlighted the community’s efforts to establish a Recreation Center at the former Redwood Valley School site but said funding remains a major barrier. She appealed for county and state assistance, noting the lack of activities for local youth.

Kevin Evans, Gualala

Deferred maintenance on high-risk roads endangers public safety

Evans raised urgent concerns about road safety after two girls were killed in a May 2025 crash on Ten-Mile Cut Off. He noted Iverson Road and Ten-Mile Cut Off have not been chip-sealed since 2000–01 and won’t be scheduled again until 2035–36, leaving a 34-year gap. He recommended reprioritizing deferred roads that exceed industry maintenance standards without diverting money from essential services. He urged immediate attention to high-risk roads, including Pacific Woods, Old Stage Road, and Little River Airport Road, citing public safety as the highest priority.

Phil Williams, Ukiah

A pestilence of misinformation is infecting the community

Williams defended Inland Water and Power Commission Chair Janet Pauli against criticisms from the group Mendo Matters, calling their attacks unfounded and personal. He praised Pauli’s leadership in negotiating agreements with Eel River stakeholders. Williams warned against misinformation, said “juveniles dressed up and purporting to serve as journalists” had amplified false claims, and pledged that many water professionals would support the IWPC position at the upcoming October 7 Board meeting.

Elise Cox, Mendo Local Public Media

County counsel denies public information request regarding allocation of public money

Cox urged transparency regarding county counsel’s guidance on asset forfeiture funds, noting her public records request was denied under attorney-client privilege. She said these legal opinions are central to the public’s understanding of present and past disputes, including a costly lawsuit and the DA recall effort. Cox called on the Board to place the matter on the agenda and release all counsel guidance on asset forfeiture spending since the program’s inception, stressing that secrecy blocks informed public debate.

David Gurney, Fort Bragg

Deferred maintenance on high-risk roads is endangering public safety

Gurney demanded immediate repairs to Little River Airport Road, describing it as dangerously narrow, potholed, and lacking shoulders. He linked poor road conditions to a September 1 car crash that left several critically injured, saying deferred maintenance likely caused the accident. He accused the Board of inaction despite repeated community warnings, calling the road an essential evacuation route and access point for seniors and emergency services. He urged the Board to act “now, as in a month ago” to prevent further deaths.