Fairfax needs to push ahead with recall vote

I agree almost completely with the IJ’s recently published editorial (“In Fairfax, both sides need to work toward consensus,” April 29), in which the board encouraged the opposing groups in the recall of two Fairfax Town Council members, Stephanie Hellman and Lisel Blash, to reach consensus rather than move forward with the recall.

Sadly, I do not see it happening. Two former Fairfax Town Council members (Frank Egger and Mike Ghiringhelli) were elected back to the board in November. On the night they were installed, one order of business was for the council to appoint a new mayor. The town website states that the mayor’s seat be rotated among council members, but it did not require them to pick Councilmember Lisel Blash, even though it may have been her turn based on prior selections. I was one of the residents asking for the council to forego tradition and appoint Ghiringhelli or Egger.

We thought it would start to heal the rift. The council voted that down. Considering that the website states the position is mostly ceremonial, why not extend the olive branch? Subsequently, two other positions I consider ceremonial needed appointments — town clerk and town treasurer. I was among the people imploring the council majority to appoint candidates who knew our town governance and financial statements intimately. Once again, the majority voted our candidates down. I felt like it was another opportunity to mend fences wasted.

How can we come together? I don’t believe Hellman, Blash or Councilmember Barbara Coler have any intention of working with those of us who, out of sheer frustration and other reasons, ultimately decided to push for a recall of Hellman and Blash. We can’t afford to wait another 17 months to vote them out.

— Liz Froneberger, Fairfax

San Anselmo should stop using goats on wildland

Many of our neighbors love seeing the annual goat grazing in Sorich Ranch Park in San Anselmo. For roughly the last seven years, the town has used goats to munch on the grasses to ostensibly help reduce fire risk.

Unfortunately, a recent first-of-its-kind study reports that goats are not good for the land and are adversely affecting the diversity of grasses and forbs. They are even denuding small trees and can even kill larger ones.

I am a member of the San Anselmo Open Space Committee. The members raised concerns after observing persistent goat impacts. When we did, the Town Council asked for a botanical study. The study shows that goat-grazed areas had 19 fewer native plant species than ungrazed areas.

After grazing, many plants “were grazed almost to the bare roots or stems and could not be identified.” The report warns that “long-term, consistent removal of herbaceous plants and grasses with no removal of woody plants (coyote brush) may cause a habitat conversion from grassland to coyote brush scrub.”

Moreover, native trees “within the project site under 6 feet in height were stripped bare of vegetation and often trampled,” and trees “over 6 feet were found to have some limited damage to their base trunks due to horn scraping, a common behavior of goats,” which can introduce pathogens and eventually kill the trees.

Although the survey did not detect any special-status species, the authors warned that goats “show no preference for the nativity of vegetation, adding in a potential risk of grazing and removal of special-status plants.”

Clearly, goat grazing is not a panacea for fire risk reduction. And given the high-potential environmental cost in our treasured open spaces, it should be paused or discontinued.

— René Voss, San Anselmo

Support of Trump was perfectly calm, rational

I want to thank the IJ for running Bill McLaughlin’s letter in support of President Donald Trump on May 4. It was refreshing to read the calm, rational thinking he displayed rather than the irrational rage that seems to be the Democratic Party’s only means of communication.

Attacking Tesla car owners is not a program with new ideas. Putting apparent support for the Chinese economy over your own countrymen is not a policy; nor is flouting the law of the federal government on immigration.

The federal government has absolute control over immigration policy, not the states. The deaths of more than 620,000 Americans in the Civil War decided that issue.

— Tim Peterson, San Anselmo