August 4th, 2025 by debate junkie
Welcome to Isleton, where logic goes to die and local government is now apparently run by committee—specifically, a committee made up of bar regulars, lawn chair philosophers, and a Facebook tabloid with a direct line to the gospel according to ChatGPT.
At the center of this civic melodrama is the Mei Wah Beer Garden—well, technically, just the outdoor seating area, which the City finally shut down. The bar inside is still open, just like it was before 2020, back when the mayor didn’t have the pandemic to thank for her extended playtime on public property. The irony? The same mayor who rode the Covid emergency rules to grab hold of a public street is the one who proudly referred to Covid as the “scamdemic.” So maybe she was right all along—maybe the encroachment was fake too.
Now, supporters claim the city is trying to kill a local business, despite the fact that the business is still very much alive (and serving drinks). The real issue is that the mayor wants to elevate bags of chips, beef jerky, and the occasional frozen burrito to Michelin Star status so she can call Mei Wah a restaurant and sidestep pesky Health Department rules. Because according to her logic, if you have a microwave and a menu, congratulations—you’re Gordon Ramsay.
Let’s also remember this little civic gem: the business in question wasn’t paying rent for the public street it occupied, and now primarily exists as a backdrop for performative rebellion. That rebellion is led, in part, by a local shit stirrer whose name rhymes with Dan Pain—a self-appointed pseudo-journalist, ChatGPT enthusiast, and proud bearer of the nickname “shit stirrer,” a title lovingly—and probably unironically—bestowed upon him by a fellow barstool barrister. On Sundays, he can be found sitting in a lawn chair, gripping a mason jar like a gavel, holding court for the outraged and the misinformed.
And yet, the crowd cries: “GET TO YES!” A sentiment echoed loudly at a recent special meeting, where supporters demanded the city make it happen, without the burden of explaining what “it” is—or whether “it” is remotely legal.
Let’s talk about that legality for a moment—just for fun. First, there’s the whole gift of public funds issue. Imagine if any ol’ bar owner in Isleton just threw some furniture onto a public street and ran a business rent-free for years. That’s already a legal headache. Now ice that cake with this fun fact: the bar owner is also the mayor. That’s right—the same person profiting from the use of public property was also in the room when the council approved temporary use of that same property back in August 2020. She “recused” herself by abstaining from the vote… immediately after lobbying for it. Bold move. Almost poetic.
Here’s a free idea: maybe the most vocal supporters could pool their resources and buy the public street outright. It’s been effectively confiscated anyway. But like everything else in this movement, that idea will die the moment it requires anything more than a Facebook comment and a raised glass. After all, alcohol is a thin glue of fellowship.
We’re also told, with great passion, that Mei Wah is vital to the local economy. But whose economy, exactly? Besides the drinks purchased within its walls, what are these out-of-towners buying elsewhere in town? Are they helping fund city infrastructure? Supporting local services? Reading the Municipal Code over breakfast? Doubtful. The pennies trickling into city coffers from this sacred tap handle are laughable at best—and possibly mythical.
Yet here we are, wrapped in the swirling logic of public sentiment that says if enough people believe something illegal should be allowed, it must be allowed. And if a City Manager doesn’t override the law in favor of feelings, well then, he’s clearly waging war on local business.
So the next time someone bellows “GET TO YES,” just remember: yes usually comes with paperwork, laws, and that pesky thing called accountability. But if you’re only here for the Facebook likes and bar stool declarations, then congrats—you’re already at “no” and halfway through your second drink.
Posted in Local, Politics
February 5th, 2024 by debate junkie
An ongoing dispute between the Plumas County Board of Supervisors and the County Treasurer/Tax Collector has led to some significant revelations. On September 6 of last year, Plumas County Treasurer/Tax Collector Julie White, an elected official, received a memo from Nancy Selvage, the county’s Human Resources Director. The memo, issued on behalf of the County Board of Supervisors, outlined a list of alleged performance deficiencies against White. White was surprised for two main reasons. First, as an elected official, she isn’t subject to the same employment policies and procedures as county staff members and is generally afforded confidentiality protections. Second, she questioned how the Board of Supervisors could have directed HR Director Selvage, who is now under indictment for an unrelated issue, to draft this memo without any public discussion, potentially in violation of California’s Brown Act. The Brown Act does not permit discussions of elected officials in Closed Sessions.
Despite these concerns, County officials—including Board of Supervisors members, CAO Debra Lucero, and the County Counsel’s office—have asserted that no Brown Act violations occurred and that all actions were lawful and appropriate. However, findings from a recent public records request, submitted under the California Public Records Act (CPRA), suggest otherwise.
Initially, the County justified the HR memo by claiming that the Feather River Tourism Association (FRTA) had expressed dissatisfaction with alleged delays in Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) payments from the Tax Collector’s office. This dissatisfaction, they argued, constituted a “significant exposure to litigation,” warranting discussion in Closed Session in August 2023. Despite requests for evidence of actual litigation risk from attorney Chris Bakes, of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, representing White, the County provided no supporting documentation, prompting Bakes’ law firm to file a public records request. “The results were mind-boggling,” said Bakes.
Both FRTA and Plumas County received the public records request. FRTA complied, promptly providing copies of relevant emails. Plumas County, however, delayed. Among the uncovered records was an email exchange revealing that CAO Lucero had actively requested FRTA provide a letter expressing their consideration of legal action against the Tax Collector’s office. This letter, dated September 28, 2023, appears to have been used to justify a Special Meeting held the following day, where a Closed Session item regarding potential litigation was on the agenda. Notably, this agenda was posted two days before FRTA’s letter was even received, suggesting the County may have orchestrated a cover-up
Posted in Local, Politics
November 6th, 2017 by debate junkie
A local Sheriff from a small Northern California County has taken Mental Health to the voters. Sheriff Tom Allman from Mendocino County hopes for a 2/3 majority win for Measure B, Mendocino County’s Mental Health Treatment Act.
This measure, if passed, will increase the sales tax collected in Mendocino County by one-half of one percent per dollar (.050%) of taxable sales over a five year period, and thereafter be reduced to one-eight cent per dollar (0.125%) of annual taxable sales to continue unless repealed.
Measure B will enable Mendocino County to construct and operate a local mental health treatment facility and a behavioral health training center so that county residents afflicted with mental illness or addiction can be appropriately diagnosed, housed and treated.
“Voting YES on Measure B will improve the quality of life for everyone in Mendocino County by making essential mental health services available to traumatized veterans, the homeless and our residents who need them.” – Sheriff Tom Allman
A full text of Measure B can be seen here: https://www.mendocinocounty.org/home/showdocument?id=10497
Posted in Local, Politics