The guiding principles of the General Plan draft were written by county staff in 2004 from input that was gathered at GPU meetings up until 2004 (Publisher, June 13). That means that the draft guiding principles are nine years old! Of course they need to be revised and updated.
So what about the nine years worth of input that people gave after 2004 up until 2013?
Some people are making ridiculous claims that the proposed new revisions to the guiding principles were made up out of thin air by Supervisor Estelle Fennell, when in reality the revisions were based on the additional input that came in after 2004.
Are the naysayers, that don't want to see any changes to the 2004 guiding principles, saying that those people don't have a right to be included? That their input doesn't count, can't be considered, shouldn't be heard, shouldn't be included?
I applaud the supervisors for not being a rubber stamp because the guiding principles obviously needed to be revised to make them current and inclusive. Especially since a lot of the input given was from rural people that had not really participated until the last few years.
The vast majority of the GPU meetings were held in urban areas. Meetings in the outlying rural areas were poorly advertised and not well attended, so to say that input from rural residents has been underrepresented is an understatement.
Supervisor Fennell and the other supervisors are showing good leadership and are doing the right thing by making sure that all input regarding the guiding principles is considered and included, not just the input from 2004 and before.
Mary Carr, Garberville